Floor Statements

Mr. President, I would like to offer a few words on a bill that I am introducing today with my colleague and friend, Senator Roy Blunt of Missouri. Upon my arrival to the Senate, Senator Blunt and I shared a conversation in which we discovered our interest in proposing pragmatic legislation that would go about easing the ever-growing regulatory burden borne by businesses across the country. Since then, we have worked together to craft a bill that takes a reasonable approach toward thinning out older regulations that have outlived their utility, all while retaining essential congressional oversight. Today we introduce the Regulatory Improvement Act of 2013, which I believe will achieve this goal.

The Regulatory Improvement Act will create an independent Regulatory Improvement Commission that will be tasked with reviewing outdated regulations with the goals of modifying, consolidating, or repealing regulations in order to reduce compliance costs, encourage growth and innovation, and improve competitiveness. The composition of the commission will be determined by congressional leadership and the President, and the commission will be tasked with identifying a single sector or area of regulations for consideration. After extensive review involving broad public and stakeholder input, the commission will submit to Congress a report containing regulations in need of streamlining, consolidation, or repeal. This report will enjoy expedited legislative procedures and will be subject to an up-or-down vote in both houses of Congress without amendment.

Let me be clear: the intent of this bill is not to engage in a wholesale dismantling of the existing regulatory regime. In particular, I share some of my colleagues concerns that ``regulatory reform'' can be employed as a euphemism to disguise an undercurrent of efforts to completely undo significant legislation--from the Clean Air Act to the Affordable Care Act. I do not support such efforts. That said, I believe there is broad bipartisan consensus that regulations have a cumulative effect and that Congress has neither the expertise nor formal mechanisms through which it can effectively and expeditiously conduct retrospective analyses. A Regulatory Improvement Commission would provide a vehicle for the review of older regulations and provided much-needed relief to businesses struggling to comply with layers of competing or even duplicative regulations.

In a larger sense, this bill seeks to reclaim some of the ground that Congress has ceded to executive agencies in recent years. From my vantage point, the current regulatory structure has become akin to a fourth, unchecked branch of government. As an institution, we must find ways to reverse this disturbing trend and reestablish an appropriate role of congressional oversight. Therefore, I am glad to introduce this bipartisan bill that offers a reasonable way to revisit older regulations, and I thank Senator Blunt for his interest and support of the proposal.

Mr. President, I would like to offer a few words on a bill that I am introducing today with my colleague and friend, Senator Roy Blunt of Missouri. Upon my arrival to the Senate, Senator Blunt and I shared a conversation in which we discovered our interest in proposing pragmatic legislation that would go about easing the ever-growing regulatory burden borne by businesses across the country. Since then, we have worked together to craft a bill that takes a reasonable approach toward thinning out older regulations that have outlived their utility, all while retaining essential congressional oversight. Today we introduce the Regulatory Improvement Act of 2013, which I believe will achieve this goal.

The Regulatory Improvement Act will create an independent Regulatory Improvement Commission that will be tasked with reviewing outdated regulations with the goals of modifying, consolidating, or repealing regulations in order to reduce compliance costs, encourage growth and innovation, and improve competitiveness. The composition of the commission will be determined by congressional leadership and the President, and the commission will be tasked with identifying a single sector or area of regulations for consideration. After extensive review involving broad public and stakeholder input, the commission will submit to Congress a report containing regulations in need of streamlining, consolidation, or repeal. This report will enjoy expedited legislative procedures and will be subject to an up-or-down vote in both houses of Congress without amendment.

Let me be clear: the intent of this bill is not to engage in a wholesale dismantling of the existing regulatory regime. In particular, I share some of my colleagues concerns that ``regulatory reform'' can be employed as a euphemism to disguise an undercurrent of efforts to completely undo significant legislation--from the Clean Air Act to the Affordable Care Act. I do not support such efforts. That said, I believe there is broad bipartisan consensus that regulations have a cumulative effect and that Congress has neither the expertise nor formal mechanisms through which it can effectively and expeditiously conduct retrospective analyses. A Regulatory Improvement Commission would provide a vehicle for the review of older regulations and provided much-needed relief to businesses struggling to comply with layers of competing or even duplicative regulations.

In a larger sense, this bill seeks to reclaim some of the ground that Congress has ceded to executive agencies in recent years. From my vantage point, the current regulatory structure has become akin to a fourth, unchecked branch of government. As an institution, we must find ways to reverse this disturbing trend and reestablish an appropriate role of congressional oversight. Therefore, I am glad to introduce this bipartisan bill that offers a reasonable way to revisit older regulations, and I thank Senator Blunt for his interest and support of the proposal.

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

Mr. President, I rise to speak on the student loan issue, and my time should be allocated to the time of Senator Alexander.

Mr. President, we have been hearing really two debates around here the last few days--in fact, over the last few days and months--about student loans. Both are important, but they are separate, and I think they need to be separate and thought of as two separate debates as we consider the issue before us this afternoon.

The first and larger issue is the cost of college. It is too high. Everyone agrees to that. In fact, the cost of college--of higher education--has exploded in the last 30 years.

In a former life, I used to interview people for a living on television. In the 1980s I interviewed the financial aid officer at one of our Maine colleges. He made a very interesting point.

He said: Angus, if you look back over the last 40 or 50 years, the cost of a private college education in the United States has almost exactly tracked the cost of a new Ford automobile. In the 1950s, $1,500 bought a car and a college education. In the 1960s, about $3,000 bought a car and a college education. That relationship continued into the 1990s. Then something happened because today a new Ford is about $18,000 and a private college is approaching $60,000, something like $58,000.

That is a real problem for all of us. It is a problem for parents. It is a problem for students. It is a problem for the government that supplies the loans. It is a problem for Pell grants. It is a problem for all of us. It is one we need to discuss. But that is not the issue before us today.

There has been some discussion in this bigger debate about college costs and what the Federal role should be. Should it be to support and help students go to college? Indeed, we have had this discussion for the last 25 or 30 years, going back to the time of Pell grants, which were designed to help students--particularly low-income students--go to school. We have had various iterations of the student loan program. At first it was lodged in the banks, and it was a guaranteed student loan. Then some years ago it was made exclusively a Federal loan.

I can make the arguments--and we have heard some of them on the floor, including from the Senator from Vermont, who very eloquently made the argument that we need to make college accessible. We should do that, but not in the context of the discussion we are having today about student loans. It is a larger issue. I am sure Senator Harkin and his committee are going to take that up in the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act later this year.

I can be very passionate and persuasive about the importance of the affordability of college. In fact, I would argue that the GI bill, back in the early 1950s and late 1940s, is one of the most important economic development investments this country ever made because it sent a whole generation of young Americans to college, and it was the mainspring of our great economic growth in the 1950s and 1960s.

The problem now, though, if we are talking about massive new Federal support for higher education--it runs into three problems, it seems to me, that we are going to have to examine and think about as we move forward in this debate. One is financial, another is political, and the final one is economic.

The financial problem is we are broke. Every dollar we spend--in addition to what is being spent now; in

fact, including about 30 percent of what we are spending now--is borrowed. So if we are going to significantly increase Federal grants or subsidies to students, they have to come from somewhere else. I heard Senator Carper speak yesterday about this.

He said: Do we really want to say, OK, we are going to cut Head Start in order to give funds to students? Are we going to cut somewhere else? How are we going to make those kinds of allocations?

Every dollar must be borrowed, and that is just the financial reality we are in today.

The political reality is we are in a situation of divided government. The central reality of our political times is nothing happens in this city without votes from both parties. It is simple arithmetic. We have a President who is a Democrat. We have a House of Representatives that is controlled by Republicans, and we have a Senate with a majority of Democrats but with important powers to the minority party. So the bottom line from all that is nothing happens without bipartisan votes. So as much as we--or any group, whether it is the Democrats, the Republicans, or our two Independents--as much as we might want something, if it doesn't have bipartisan support, it is simply not going to happen. That is the reality.

That is indeed the reality that drove Joe Manchin and I to begin these discussions about 6 weeks ago when we were talking about student loans. There was a Democratic proposal which didn't get enough votes, there was a Republican proposal which didn't get enough votes, and everybody walked away. I was haunted by the experience of the sequester, where the same thing happened: Democratic proposal, Republican proposal, everybody hates the sequester, but it is happening.

So we believed we had to open some discussions because we have to find a way to get enough votes to get a proposal through the Congress so students aren't facing way higher interest rates this month than they should be. No action, make no mistake about it, means students will be paying dramatically higher interest rates than they should be, given the current cost of money. Why? Because Congress fixed an interest rate.

I would argue the last thing Congress should ever do is fix an interest rate. It will always be wrong--either wrong for the students as it is now, dramatically, or wrong for the taxpayers at some point in the future. We can't predict what interest rates can or should be, and fixing a rate, which is what we are facing now--6.8 percent--is always--at this point, as I said, is dramatically wrong for students.

In terms of the political realities around here, my dad was a lifelong poker player. One of the things I learned from him--one of the guiding principles of my life--is you have to play the hand that is dealt. The hand that is dealt us right now is that it takes both Republican and Democratic votes to get anything through the Congress. That is the reality, and that defines our ability to get things done. It doesn't mean we can't get things done, it just means we can't always get our way, and compromise has to be part of our lexicon.

The final issue about whether we want to create a massive new support program for college education is economics. I am not saying this is a dispositive argument, but I think it is something we have to think about. The explosion of college costs I talked about that started in the 1990s corresponded, to a large extent, to the availability of additional money for scholarships and loans and grants, and the colleges essentially ate it up. We can go through great effort to find money to increase Pell grants by $1,000, and we will all feel good that we have done something for the students. But if the colleges increase their costs by $1,000, nobody wins. The Federal Government and the taxpayers are out $1,000. The students are in exactly the same position they were in before. They still have to find the difference because the money has just been eaten up by the increases in costs.

I think that is why we have to be thinking about what the implications are of the actions we take. Just saying we want to give more money to students for college--if, indeed, that money immediately turns into higher costs and higher tuition, nobody has gained, least of all the students because they end up with this huge debt burden.

We can and should have this discussion. It is an important one. But it is not the discussion before us today. The discussion before us today is pretty simple: Do we want to continue a program that has fixed rates at 6.8 percent when currently rates are running more in the 3- percent range?

In other words, do we want to balance the Federal budget for the next 4 or 5 years on the backs of our students? I don't think we should do that. I think we have come up with a proposal that doesn't do that-- that dramatically benefits students as long as interest rates are where they are, and it protects students on the upside.

I try to always think about problems as if we didn't have all of the history and we simply had a blank sheet of paper and said: How should we go about this? How should we structure a student loan program in the Federal Government if we didn't have all the back-and-forth and the history and the fixed rates and all of those things?

It would seem to me if we sat down in a room with a group of bright people, they would say: Well, No. 1, the government is going to have to borrow this money that it then lends to the students because we are broke. Therefore, in order to be fair to the taxpayers and the students, the students should pay what it costs the government to borrow the money, plus a little bit for the cost of administering the program and the risks of default. That is exactly where we landed in this proposal.

People talk about market rates. Yes, there are market rates, but it is the 10-year Treasury bill, which is one of the lowest rates in the country. This isn't the prime rate. This isn't LIBOR. This is one of the lowest borrowing rates we can ever have. It is the borrowing rate for the U.S. Government, which heretofore anyway has had a pretty good credit rating. Therefore, the students are guaranteed that they will always be below the outside market. If they went to a bank for a loan with no collateral, no cosigning, no job, the rates would be much higher than what we are talking about.

By the way, it is important to understand, because there has been so much discussion about this, that this is not an adjustable rate mortgage. If we can manage to pass this bill and get it through the House and get it to the President in the next week to 10 days, once a student signs up for a loan this fall their rate for that loan will be fixed at 3.86 percent for the term of the loan--for the term of the loan.

It is true that the following year, if they need another loan, that rate will be the T-bill plus 2.05 percent for the term of that loan. In other words, the loan rate doesn't change each year according to the rates. I think that is an important distinction. I think there has been some confusion about that. In addition, there are provisions in current law which this bill doesn't change that allow for forgiveness of student loans under certain circumstances, depending upon how long the loan has been in place and the employment a person has, as well as limits on how much a person has to pay as a percentage of their income.

As I said before, I don't believe Congress should be setting rates.

Let's talk about the effect of this proposal on students. The first effect is that it will cut almost in half the rates students are going to have to pay for their loans this year, from 6.8 percent to 3.86 percent, as this side of the chart shows. So a freshman going to college starting in 2013--this year--this is what they would pay for their total loans under this proposal.

It says ``bipartisan''; it should say ``nonpartisan.'' This is what they will pay under current law. That is a dramatic difference. That is money out of the pockets--billions of dollars out of the pockets of students over the next 2 or 3 years.

Everybody says, well, what if rates go up? Rates might go up. They might stay the same. They might go down. But even if they go up, under the projections of the Congressional Budget Office, here is a student starting college in 2017, and they would pay a little bit more under our proposal--it is the difference between $24,800 and 24,295--about $500. This difference is about

$2,000. This is money in hand. This is maybe, depending upon what happens with interest rates--what is worth more, $1 billion in hand or $1 billion in the bush? I think it is $1 billion in hand because these are the rates kids are going to have to face right now.

I think this is a great deal for students. No. 1, it dramatically lowers the rates in the early years. No. 2, thanks to the hard work of Tom Harkin, who negotiated like a tiger, there is a cap on the upside. So students aren't subjected, if rates happen to go way up--as they have occasionally but not very often in our recent history--into double digits, there is a cap of 8.25 percent.

So the students enjoy the benefit of the low rates, but their exposure to the upper rates, to too-high rates, is capped. I think that is a sensible and prudent and beneficial proposal for students.

The savings to students next year will be something like $8 billion or $9 billion; otherwise, if we do nothing this week, that is the amount they are going to have to pay.

The future is uncertain, but I think it is important to talk about projections of interest rates because a lot of the discussion is that the students are going to have to pay so much more because the CBO projects interest rates to go up. By the way, even on the CBO's projections for undergraduates, the rates would never hit the cap. They would be in the low 7s--very close to where the present rate is.

But let's just talk about CBO interest rate projections because that is what is driving a lot of the anxiety around here. Here is the CBO. Let's pretend it is 2003--10 years ago--and we go to the CBO and say: What are you projecting for interest rates--just as we did a few weeks ago? Here is what they projected. They said: Well, interest rates are at about 4 percent, but we think they are going to go up around 5, 5.5, 6 percent. That is the projection CBO used in 2003. OK.

The good news is, we know what actually happened. Again, starting in 2003, here is the actual cost of interest rates. Look at the difference. If we were basing our decisions on projected interest rates, look at the huge difference that took place, and all of this represents money in the students' pockets as opposed to fixing the rate.

So, yes, the projections are that they will go up, but we do not know that. I would take money in hand anyday against a possibility that there might be a payment later on. And we do not know that. It could go either way.

If interest rates go way up, as I said, the cap kicks in. The cap of 8.25 percent is very close to the 6.8 percent we have now. It results in about--I do not know--$20 a month difference between the cap and the 6.8 percent, if, indeed, we go all the way to the cap.

I think this is a prudent and responsible proposal. It is the best of all worlds for the students because they get low rates now, and they get a cap if rates go up. I think it makes sense for the taxpayers. I am perfectly willing to have the debate, to have the discussion about, A, what do we do about college costs, and, B, should the Federal Government be playing a greater role in terms of support for students? I think that is a very honest discussion.

But this is called the student loan program. It is about loans. And the implication of a loan is that it is to be paid back with some reasonable rate of interest. Pell grants are grants, and we have tax credit programs that are, in effect, grants. This is one part of the student aid puzzle, and what we have before us today is a prudent, sensible, beneficial program for the students.

I will conclude by saying the choice is very clear because if we do not act on this bipartisan proposal that we believe will have a receptive ear in the House of Representatives--we know the President supports it and is ready to sign it tomorrow--if we do not move this bill, nothing happens, nothing happens during August, students are signing up for loans at almost double the rate they should be. I think that is unfair to students, and I think they sent us here to solve problems. This is one I believe we can tackle. We can and have solved it.

I yield the floor.

Three zeroes.

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

Madam President:

Who is in charge of the clattering train?

The axles creak and the couplings strain,

And the pace is hot and the points are near,

And sleep hath deadened the driver's ear,

And the signals flash through the night in vain,

For death is in charge of the clattering train.

That is a poem from the 1930s that was quoted by Winston Churchill in his book ``The Gathering Storm.''

I rise today in the wake of a terrible tragedy, of a clattering train, where death was in charge--one that left more than 60 people missing, 20 confirmed dead, and has devastated a community. But despite the magnitude of this amazing loss, it is also a story of human heroism at its highest level.

I am referring to a horrific accident that occurred early last Saturday morning when a 72-car train carrying crude oil derailed in Lac-Megantic, Quebec, near the border of western Maine. As the train erupted into all-engulfing flames, it came crashing into the town demolishing everything in its path. Cars and buildings were instantly incinerated, pavement on the roads literally melted away, and sidewalks crumbled from the intense heat and pressure. As a result, nearly a full six city blocks were completely leveled, forcing almost 2,000 residents to flee their homes--a third of Lac-Megantic's total population.

And while local Canadian firefighters battled the flames valiantly-- and I mean valiantly--it became clear they desperately needed support. So after receiving a call at 4 a.m., 30 firefighters from Rangeley, Farmington, Phillips, Strong, New Vineyard, and Chesterville--all wonderful small Maine towns--as well as the town of Eustis, arose from their sleep, rushed to their engines, and drove 83 miles nonstop-- arriving at 6 a.m.--to help extinguish this horrendous blaze. It is worth noting that, except for the chief, every firefighter who made this journey and put their life at risk, every single one that morning, was a volunteer--serving and risking their lives of their own choice and volition.

Upon arrival, their efforts had immediate impact. They quickly realized there was a desperate need for water, and because the town lacked a hydrant system, they swiftly turned their attention to a lake 3,000 feet away and began to pump water using an extraction skill that Maine firefighters are specifically taught and trained to use. They continued to pump water from that lake for 21 straight hours.

Let's put that in perspective for a moment: For almost the entire next day those brave men and women, driven by an incredible spirit of perseverance and self-sacrifice, worked tirelessly to extinguish the blaze and gain control of the burning train cars.

Fire Chief Timothy Pellerin of the Rangeley station said everyone was hugging and cheering to celebrate their miraculous success when the fire was brought under control. It was ``like a ball team after a win,'' he said. The Canadians, overwhelmed by the selflessness and courageousness of those volunteer Americans, thanked them for their steadfast determination to see the crisis through.

Residents of Lac-Megantic and local firemen were coming up to one of the Rangeley firetrucks asking to have their picture taken with the American flag attached to the safety bar and pausing to touch it as a sign of their respect and gratitude. After returning home late Sunday afternoon, Chief Pellerin said he has ``never been more proud'' to be from Maine and from America and to be a firefighter.

We still do not know the full scope of the devastation wracked by this gruesome event. The cleanup and recovery costs will undoubtedly be astronomical, as well as the traumatic impact on the community upon which no dollar estimate can be placed. Initial reports indicated that at least up to 1.2 million gallons of crude oil spilled into the streets, basements of houses, storm drains, and contaminated that nearby lake. Currently, over 200 criminal investigators are sifting through the charred remains of what might be North America's worst railway disaster, and I sincerely hope that through their efforts we will be able to better understand the causes of this horrible tragedy and perhaps, more importantly, how it can be prevented in the future.

However, my real reason for rising today is to honor those volunteer firefighters from Maine--true American heroes who embody the best this country has to offer. They were called into action by their unwavering sense of civic duty, and throughout the night they overcame tremendous odds, including a language barrier and a lack of resources, to finally help extinguish the fire early Sunday morning. These brave Mainers showed true strength of character--strength of character that enabled them to overcome fear in pursuit of the greater good. It is without a doubt that their actions saved countless lives. We owe these American heroes our enduring gratitude.

My thoughts and prayers remain today with those who are impacted by this tragic event.

To go back to the words Churchill quoted so long ago:

Who is in charge of the clattering train?

The axles creak and the couplings strain,

And the pace is hot and the points are near,

And sleep hath deadened the driver's ear,

And the signals flash through the night in vain,

For death is in charge of the clattering train.

Death was in charge of the clattering train that dark night. The perseverance, skill, and courage of those firefighters from Maine and their brave Canadian counterparts could not prevent a tragedy but at least contained and controlled it.

Madam President, this is the best of America.

I yield the floor.

Quorum Call

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I would like to discuss my J-1 visa amendment to the immigration bill, which was incorporated into the Corker-Hoeven amendment. The purpose of the amendment is to increase transparency and accountability of exchange visitor programs that operate under the J-1 visa category, while ensuring the continued existence of the J-1 program.

I proposed the new subtitle I in title III, with the support of my friend from Wisconsin Mr. Johnson. While the original subtitle F protections applied across a range of visas that have a work component, the J-1 visa category is fundamentally different from the other visas originally included in subtitle F. The J-1 category simply required separate treatment to ensure increased protection of J-1 visa holders and the long-term viability of this important diplomatic program.

I appreciate the support of the senior Senator from Connecticut, the original sponsor of subtitle F, and would like to further clarify the intent of our amendment.

Throughout the crafting of our amendment, I acknowledged that there are legitimate concerns with some J-1 programs. There have been instances in the Summer Work Travel Program where student placements have been inappropriate for the purposes of true cultural exchange.

As S.744 was reported from the Judiciary Committee, however, the intended reforms would have made it impossible for high quality sponsors to continue to administer the Exchange Visitor Program. Without an amendment, this important public diplomacy tool would have been lost.

Our amendment strikes ``exchange visitors'' from the definition of ``worker'' in subtitle F. Subtitle F is aimed at foreign labor contracting activity and creates important new protections for foreign workers in the U.S.--we did this because J-1 exchange visitors are not primarily workers, but instead cultural exchange participants. We believe this amendment to the bill makes clear that neither exchange visitors nor sponsors of J-1 programs are subject to the new requirements of Subtitle F, and that J-1 sponsors are not considered foreign labor contractors or recruiters.

As with any compromise, subtitle I is not 100 percent perfect. But it includes several important elements. Most vital, the amendment allows these valuable programs to continue and provides key protections to ensure participants remain safe. The Department of State has strengthened its regulations in recent years, and our amendment will help further that process. I believe our amendment makes the exchange visitor program stronger and ensures that international students and American businesses have clearer rules to continue this important public diplomacy tool.

I appreciate the collaborative effort of my colleagues, particularly the Senators from Connecticut and Wisconsin, for helping to craft legislation that improves the J-1 exchange visitor program. I look forward to continuing to work with them as this bill moves forward.

I thank Senator Collins for her work on this issue. During the last logging season, 79 logging workers were granted H-2A visas for work in Maine. They were able to do this because the Department of Labor included logging employment as a covered occupation for the H-2A program by a December 18, 2008 rule. In the rule, the Department noted that they received two comments in support of including logging employment and no comments in opposition for purposes of the H-2A program. The Maine companies we have heard from are not looking for a special carve-out for the logging industry, but they want to make sure that their industry, which currently uses the H-2A program, is not excluded from the new W program that would replace the H-2A program. I ask the Senator from Vermont, who had such a hand in crafting this legislation, whether it is his understanding that the logging industry, specifically logging employment, as defined in title 20 of the Code of Federal Regulations in section 655.103(c)(4), would be able to access the new W agricultural program just as they have the H-2A program.

Mr. President, I don't have a great deal to add to Senator Manchin's comments except to point out that everyone in this body wants to do best by our students. Everyone understands the importance of education, everyone understands how expensive it is, and everyone understands the problem of the debt burden on our students. We are all trying to search for a solution that can garner bipartisan support and pass the Senate, the House, and go to the President.

The proposal we have put forward before the body today is based upon, in many ways, the proposal made by the President in his budget. It is similar to a provision that has already passed the House. I think a couple of points should be made. One point that should be made is there is a lot of talk about a floating rate. I think people think of mortgages and adjustable rate mortgages where the rate changes from year to year.

Under our proposal, once a student takes out a loan in a given year, at whatever the rate is that year, that rate is fixed for the life of the loan. The following year, if interest rates--and we are talking about the 10-year Treasury bill of the U.S. Government, one of the lowest interest rates there is--go up, then it would go up. That is for next year's loan, not for the loan that has already been taken out.

I think we have learned from our current circumstance the folly of Congress trying to set interest rates. Setting 6.8 percent and 3.4 percent interest rates 5 or 6 years ago looked like a great deal. Today it is generating billions of dollars to the Treasury on the backs of our students.

So I think our solution is a commonsense solution, and that is to base the interest rate for the students at the lowest available rate to virtually anybody in our society, which would be the 10-year Treasury bill, plus 1.85 percent, which protects the Treasury from the costs of administering the program and the risks inherent in the program. If we do that, we will have certainty in the program and the lowest interest rate that would generally be available in this society.

If we started with a blank sheet of paper and said: We want the Federal Government to provide loans to students, I believe we would end up where this plan has ended up. It is where the President ended up, it is where the House has ended up, and I think we have an opportunity. The question is, Should we extend this for 1 year and take more time? I am new, but I stood here during the debates on the sequester, where both parties put forward their proposals, neither party got the votes, and we ended up with a sequester.

We said the exact same thing with student loans about 1 month ago. Each party put forward their proposal, neither party got their votes, and here we are just about at the deadline and the rates are going to double for those subsidized Stafford loans.

I don't know what we are going to know 1 year from now that we don't

know now. I believe the time is now to try to come to a resolution that meets everybody's requirements, and we are not that far apart. The differences separating us in this body are not that far apart. I believe we have an opportunity not only to solve this problem fairly to our students but to demonstrate to the country that we are able to make decisions and not simply delay them for another 1 or 2 years.

That is why I rise to support the bill that Senator Manchin and I, as well as others, including Senator Burr, Senator Alexander--who I think is one of the most respected Members of this body, particularly on education matters--and Senator Coburn. We have a strong bill. I think as people see the details, understand it better, understand the terms, and understand the effects, we will save students in America over the next 3 or 4 years something like $50 billion. If we don't resolve this problem, it will come into the Treasury on the backs of our students. I don't think that is a result we want.

I think we have a responsible proposal. It is a bipartisan one, and I believe it deserves full and fair consideration. I am sure all of these proposals will have a lot of discussion once we are back in session a week and a half from now, and I hope we can come to a resolution because the students of America deserve to know two things: that Congress has their back on student loans and that their Congress is, in fact, able to make decisions, handle issues, and move forward.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise in morning business, and I request unanimous consent for 15 minutes for remarks.

We all know that next Thursday, a week from tomorrow, is our Nation's most important anniversary--July 4, 1776, the birthday of the country. But Tuesday, July 2, is also one of our most important anniversaries because July 1, 2, and 3 are the days the Battle of Gettysburg occurred. That was probably the defining event in the history of this country. It is especially important this year because it is the 150th anniversary of the Battle of Gettysburg. What I would like to do is share a few moments about one particular aspect of that battle. It does indeed involve Maine and Alabama. It involves a man from Maine named Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain, who in 1862 was a professor of modern languages at Bowdoin College in Maine. He was not a soldier, had no history in the military, but decided that he had a vision of America and he wanted to serve his country.

He joined a volunteer regiment organized in Maine in August of 1862 called the 20th Maine regiment. They came down the east coast, up the Potomac to Washington, and were immediately deployed to Antietam in September of 1862--the bloodiest day in American history. Fortunately for the 20th Maine, they were held in reserve that day. They did see action over the course of the fall and early winter at the Battle of Fredericksburg. Then, along with 2 great armies, they headed north into the State of Pennsylvania.

Mr. President, you are going to have to bear with my cartographic skills. I think it would be helpful if we can see what happened. It is easy to draw Virginia because it is a big triangle, so this is Virginia. Here is the Maryland-Pennsylvania border.

In the early summer of 1863, two great armies snaked north out of Virginia. Lee's Army of Northern Virginia came up the west side of the foothills of the Appalachians and into Pennsylvania, shadowed by Meade's Army of the Potomac, both 90,000 men. Meade was leading the way into Pennsylvania without a particular destination but a desire to engage the Federal Army in one climactic battle which he thought correctly could have ended the Civil War.

Nobody knows exactly why on July 1 of 1863 those two armies collided in the little town of Gettysburg. There is a rumor that there was a shoe factory there and that the southern Army was going to go and requisition those shoes. For whatever reason, the two armies met in this little town of Gettysburg, PA. One of the interesting things about the battle was that Lee's army had already gotten almost to Harrisburg and came down into Gettysburg. The Union Army was coming up the Taneytown Road from Washington and from the south, and they came in in this direction. So at the Battle of Gettysburg, the southern army came in from the north, and the northern army came in from the south.

On the first day of the battle, there was a standoff. They met almost by accident in this town. There was fierce fighting in the streets of Gettysburg, in the south of the town, and it was essentially a draw.

At the end of the day on July 1--and the word flashed back to both armies that this was it. This was the confrontation, and reinforcements came in from both lines of march to meet at this little town.

What happened on the second day was that on the morning of the second day the Union troops--again, if this is

the town up here, the Union troops ended up on a hill called Culp's Hill and then in a long line to the south, along an area that was an old place where they buried people. Of course, that is Cemetery Ridge.

On the other side, the Confederates--and interestingly enough, throughout American history red markers represent the Confederates and blue the Federals--the Confederates ended up on a long ridge that ended up down this way, with about a mile apart, and over here was a place where they trained people to be preachers. That, of course, is Seminary Ridge. So generations of sixth graders have been--Seminary Ridge over here, Cemetery Ridge over here--generations of sixth graders have been confused by this, but it is ``Cemetery'' where the Union was and ``Seminary'' where the Confederate troops were.

About the second day of the battle, a Union general noticed there was a small hill down at the bottom of the entire line of Union troops that was unoccupied by either side. He also immediately realized this could be the most important piece of property in the entire battlefield because it had an elevation that looked up the entire Federal line and it anchored the Federal line.

The Union general grabbed the nearest officer near him and said: We have to occupy that hill immediately. The fellow's name was Strong Vincent, was the officer from New York. Vincent grabbed two other regiments, New York and Pennsylvania, and then Maine, the 20th Maine Regiment, and they went to the top of this hill.

Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain had only been the colonel of the 20th Maine for about a month. He was in charge of 358 men. Vincent took him to the extreme left flank of the Union Army, of this little hill, which is called Little Round Top.

We had Pennsylvania, New York, and Maine. Vincent took Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain to this point, and here were his orders:

This is the extreme left flank of the entire Union Army.

You are to hold this ground at all hazards.

``At all hazards''--that means to the death.

Almost immediately upon getting to the top of the hill, up came the 15th Alabama--one of the crack regiments in Lee's army--up the hill to try to dislodge the 20th Maine. If you have not been to Gettysburg, Little Round Top--if God were going to build a fortress, it would look like Little Round Top. It is steep, rocky, with lots of places to be behind, and indeed Chamberlain took maximum advantage of that. As the charge came, they were able to repel it.

A half hour later or so, the Alabamians came again. They were pushed back. They came again and were pushed back. Each time they got closer and closer to the top of the hill because of the nature of guns in the Civil War. A good shooter in the Civil War, a good handler of a rifle, could get off four shots a minute.

I want you to think of yourself, Mr. President, at the top of that hill with the 15th Alabama coming up. You take aim with your rifle and shoot--bang. You are now prepared to shoot a second time. That period until that sound--it felt like an eternity--was 15 seconds. That is how long it would take to reload and get another shot. That is why in this situation the charge came closer and closer.

By the third and fourth charge, it became hand-to-hand combat.

I should say, by the way, as I mentioned, that Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain was not a soldier by trade; he was a professor at a little college. He spoke 10 languages in 1856. But he had a deep vision for the meaning of America, and he had a deep concern about the issue of slavery.

When he was a student at Bowdoin in the early 1850s, a young professor's wife was writing a book, and he sat in the living room of this professor and listened to her read excerpts from this book, and the book turned out to be probably the most influential book ever published in America. It was called ``Uncle Tom's Cabin.'' It described for people in the country the evils of slavery. Indeed, when Abraham Lincoln met Harriet Beecher Stowe and shook her hand, he said, ``I am shaking the hand that started the Civil War'' because it lit the fuse that led to the pressure that ultimately led to the abolition of slavery.

In any case, four and then five charges, and each time, the 15th Alabama was repelled. But then they were gathering at the bottom of the hill for the final assault late in the day, a hot afternoon, July 2, 1863. The problem was, for Chamberlain, his men were out of ammunition. They each had been issued 60 cartridges at the beginning of the battle. They had all been fired during those five assaults. He then had a choice to make as a leader. He had three options:

One was to retreat--which is a perfectly honorable thing to do in a military situation, but his orders were to hold the ground ``at all hazards'' because if he had not, if the Confederates had gotten around Little Round Top, the entire rear of the Union Army would have been exposed.

His other option was to stand and fight until overwhelmed. That would not have worked very well because it would have only delayed them for a few minutes.

Instead, he chose an extraordinary option that was very unusual even at the time. He uttered one word, and the word was ``bayonets.'' There is a dispute in history whether he also said ``charge'' and what his actual order was, but everybody agrees he uttered the word ``bayonets,'' and his soldiers knew what that meant, and down the hill into the face of the final Confederate charge came 200 crazy guys from Maine. The 15th Alabama for the first and only time in the Civil War was so shocked by this technique that they turned and ran, and the 200 boys from Maine--and I say 200 but at the beginning of this action there were over 300; they lost 100 to casualties and death--captured 400 or 500 Confederates with no bullets in their guns.

Chamberlain tried to call his men back. They said, ``Hell no, General, we are on our way to Richmond.''

I tell this story because it is a story of extraordinary bravery. By the way, Chamberlain received the Congressional Medal of Honor for his bravery and creativity that afternoon on that little hill in Pennsylvania. But I tell the story because it is a story of our country and it is a story of how a single person's actions and bravery can have enormous impact. Historians argue about whether this was really the key turning point, was there something else, was it some other regiment at another place, but an argument can be made that this college professor from Maine saved the United States. The defining moment for our country was that hot afternoon in Pennsylvania, July 2, 1863.

I believe it is one of the great stories of American history. In fact, the story of Chamberlain and Little Round Top is taught in Army manuals to this day as a story of leadership, creativity, perseverance, courage, and devotion to God and country.

I hope all Americans will think about these moments, and thousands more like them, as we celebrate not only the birth of our country next week, but also the rebirth of our country in the 3 days prior to July 4th.

I thank the Chair.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise in sadness because America and the State of Maine lost a friend yesterday, one of my predecessors in this office, Senator Bill Hathaway, who served 14 years in the Congress, 8 in the House and 6 in the Senate, from 1973 to 1978.

I knew him well because I worked for him as a staff member in the Senate. In fact, I was sworn in as a Senator 40 years to the day from the day I entered Senate service on behalf of Bill Hathaway in January of 1973.

I had a chance, as all staff members do, to see him up close, to see him operate as a Senator and as a person. I was asked today several questions about him and what characterized Bill Hathaway. The first thing I said was he always put people first. He really and truly didn't pay much attention to politics. He always wanted to do what was right. I remember being in his office in the Russell Senate Office Building and talking about the political ramifications of some bill or some vote.

He sat back in his chair and said: You know, it is hard enough around here to figure out what the right thing to do is. When you add the politics on top of it, it becomes practically impossible.

That was the way he thought and that was the way he acted. In fact, I once sent him a memo as a young staff member that had some political ramifications of a particular vote. I wish I had saved the memo because in his inimitable scrawl at the top of the page when it came back to me it said: I pay you for policy, not political advice.

That was the kind of guy he was. One of the things which I noticed about him, which was a tremendous influence on my life, was he was exactly the same person in private as he was in public. There wasn't a different Bill Hathaway on the stump, in Maine, making speeches or on television than the one I saw behind closed doors driving around Washington or around Maine, through the small towns, getting a haircut or spending time together. He was always the same person with the same values and the same concern for the people of Maine.

If you haven't gathered it already, Bill Hathaway taught me a lot about how to do this job.

Next to my dad, he was probably the most influential adult in my life when I was a young person. He was honest, he was smart, he was analytical, and he was motivated to do the right thing for the people of this country and the people of the State of Maine.

I have one personal story as well because I think it speaks to the kind of person he was.

Unfortunately, when I was working here in 1974, I was stricken with a dangerous and unusual form of cancer. I ended up having to have significant surgery. I, again, was one of many staff members who worked for Bill Hathaway, but one of the most vivid memories of my life was waking in the hospital after the surgery in the recovery room. Looking up, I saw my wife on one side of the bed and standing at the end of the bed in hospital green scrubs was Senator Bill Hathaway.

That was the kind of man he was. He was a politician but in a good sense of the word. He was a man who thought about the people who took so seriously the responsibilities of this office. We lost him yesterday. I think he was about 90 years old. He never lost his interest in Maine, in people or in the issues of the country.

I was fortunate to spend some time with him recently, and he hadn't lost a step when it came to thinking about these kinds of questions. He was good-natured, funny, and he was genuine.

As I said at the beginning, Maine and the United States of America lost a friend yesterday, and he is one whom I will miss terribly.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business for up to 12 minutes.

Mr. President, I quote:

He has endeavored to prevent the population of these

States; for that purpose obstructing the laws of

Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to

encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions

of new appropriations of lands.

That is the language of the Declaration of Independence.

One of the grievances against King George III, in the immortal words of Thomas Jefferson, was limitations on immigration: ``Endeavoring to prevent the population of these States.'' That was an original formulation, an original idea at the heart of the United States.

Looked at in the context of our history, this debate we are having this week is somewhat disappointing but not surprising. It is serious in its particulars, but it is amazing in its totality.

Here we have a roomful of descendants of immigrants arguing about the conditions of immigration. Sure, most of our ancestors in this room entered the country legally, but that was because there were virtually no laws about immigration for the majority of our history. For most of our history, if a person could pay the cost, a person could enter the country. That is the fundamental premise of America.

What are we afraid of? Are we afraid of people with courage, people with imagination, people with initiative, people with perseverance?

Before coming to this body, I taught at Bowdoin College in Maine a course on leaders and leadership and we attempted to define the qualities of leadership. At the end of the course each year we took an analysis of what we had seen, and people with courage, imagination, initiative, and perseverance are leaders. Those are the people we want in this country. That is what it takes to come here. That is what it has taken to come here throughout our history.

And why are they coming? They are coming for opportunity. They are coming for freedom. They are coming for a better life for their children, the same reason our ancestors came here. Isn't this what we all want--opportunity, freedom, and a better life for our kids?

Does this discussion affect the State of Maine? Well, yes, it does. We have migrants and immigrants picking our crops in northern Maine, blueberries and potatoes and broccoli. We have a vibrant refugee and asylum-seeking community in Portland, ME, and in Lewiston. Many of those from Africa come here with very different cultures. We have 52 languages spoken in the Portland public schools. Yes, we have strains and difficulties adjusting one culture to another. But we are making it work and it is making our State richer spiritually, culturally, intellectually, and, yes, financially. It is working.

But isn't this discussion all about amnesty? I keep hearing about amnesty. The mail I get says, Don't let them get amnesty. No, it is not about amnesty. In my book, amnesty is a free pass. Amnesty is a ``get out of jail free'' card; it is a forgiveness. If a person is convicted of what we call in our State OUI--other places call it DWI--if a person is convicted of driving under the influence, that person pays a fine, loses their license, and sometimes they spend a few days in jail and they are under a suspension or a probationary period for several months or perhaps even several years. But when it is all over--when a person has paid their fine and had their suspension--they get their license back and they move on with their life and go from there. Nobody calls that amnesty when a person gets their license back at the end of that period after they have paid their debt to society.

I would argue that a fine, which is contained in this bill, and 13 years of what constitutes probation is not amnesty. It is not amnesty in anybody's book. People who are talking about calling it amnesty-- that is not accurate.

Why is this debate so important? Why is this issue so important? Why is this bill so important? In my view, immigration is the mainspring of America. It is our secret sauce. It is what has made us who we are. No other country in the history of the world has been built the way this country was built. Except for the African Americans who were brought here against their will and the Native Americans who were here when the Europeans arrived, everybody else here came by virtue of immigration, and that immigration is, I believe, what has separated us from the rest of the world. It is the

constant flow of new energy, initiative, and ideas, different cultures, different religions, different backgrounds, and different creative energies that have made this country what it is today. If we unduly limit it or cut it off, we are sunk.

We are living in a negative demographic timebomb. Last year, I believe for the first time in American history, we had more deaths than births of White Americans. One doesn't have to be a mathematician to know if that continues, we will shrink and shrivel as a society. We need immigration to add to our population, to add to the ideas and creativity.

What would we lose if we unduly limited immigration in this country? Well, I am standing in the shoes of Olympia Snowe, the daughter of Greek immigrants. Before Olympia Snowe, the holder of this office was George Mitchell, the son of immigrants. Before George Mitchell it was Ed Muskie, one of the great legislators of the 20th century in America and the son of an immigrant Polish tailor. We have among our number now a brilliant young Senator from Texas who himself is the son of an immigrant.

Immigrants are always going to be different and a little scary, and that has been true throughout American history. We have had waves of immigrations: Italians, Germans, Scottish people, Chinese, Irish. It is hard for us to believe, but a lot of the same sort of uneasiness about new immigrants was applied to those groups. In New York in the 1800s, if a person went to apply for a job there might be a sign in the window of the store that said ``employees needed, jobs available,'' and then in parentheses it might say in big letters, ``NINA''--N-I-N-A. NINA stood for ``No Irish Need Apply.'' So uneasiness and fear and, yes, some prejudice against immigrants has been a part of our history. But in the end, those people are the very people who have built this country, literally, and who have made this country what it is.

It is who we are.

There is also talk I have heard about wages and how all of these new people are going to depress wages. Indeed, a couple of weeks ago I had a meeting on my schedule in Maine with a union group and all it said was ``union group to discuss immigration.'' I thought, These folks are going to be worried about wages and they are going to tell me this is a bad idea. Just the opposite. What they said was, We support the bill, Senator. We want immigration reform because now we have millions of people in this country who are in the shadows who don't have the benefits of the labor protections and that is what is drawing wages down. That is what is providing a downward motion on wages and benefits. When an employer knows he or she has that kind of leverage over an employee--if a person doesn't take the low salary or sometimes no salary at all--they may say, I am going to report you; you will be gone and deported, and that is an inherently uneven and unfair playing field.

That is why I believe, and I think the CBO report has confirmed, that fixing this problem--putting the people who are here on a pathway to earn citizenship--will actually be a gigantic stimulus to our country.

So what we are doing here is very important. Yes, I know, we need controls, we need border controls. We need to control terrorism and criminals coming into our country. And, yes, I know we shouldn't reward breaking the law. But 13 years of probation and a fine is not rewarding law-breaking. Again, we have to ask, Why did these people break the law? They broke the law for the same reason our ancestors came here, and the only reason they didn't break the law was there was no law to break at that time. But they came here for opportunity and for a better life for their children.

I have quoted Mark Twain before on this floor and I will probably do so repeatedly because he captures so many thoughts so succinctly. In this case, what he said was: ``History doesn't always repeat itself, but it usually rhymes.''

This discussion we are having here today is nothing new in American history. It has arisen time after time. It arose in the 1840s and 1850s when indeed a whole political party came up that was designed to keep people out. It was called the Know-Nothing Party. The reason it was called that was because when people asked the members of the party what they stood for, the members of the party would say they didn't know anything about that because they didn't want to talk about it. But they were antiforeigner and anti-Catholic and it was designed to lock in the ethnic and cultural society as it stood in 1850.

Abraham Lincoln was asked, when he was a member of the Illinois legislature--I wish he had been a member of the Maine legislature but I have to concede him to Illinois--how he felt about the Know-Nothings and whether he in fact was a Know-Nothing. Here is what he said:

I am not a Know-Nothing. How could I be? How can anyone who

abhors the oppression of Negroes be in favor of degrading

other classes of white people? Our progress in degeneracy

appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation we began by

declaring ``all men are created equal.'' We now practically

read it, ``all men are created equal except Negroes.'' With

the Know-Nothings in charge it will read, ``all men are

created equal, except Negroes and foreigners and Catholics.''

He ended pretty toughly. He said:

When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some

country where they make no pretense of loving liberty--to

Russia, for example, where despotism can be taken pure and

without the base alloy of hypocrisy.

I am not suggesting hypocrisy on the part of the people who are debating this bill, but I do think this is not a new debate and we can't fear new people coming into our country.

I believe this bill represents a fair-minded resolution of the current conflict over immigration: control of the border to stem the tide of illegal immigration; penalties applied to those who broke the law; but an opportunity to earn citizenship after paying the penalty and a lengthy period of what amounts to probation.

I don't think this debate is about fences and fines and learning English. It is about America itself: confusing, chaotic, creative, at times unsettling, but always erring on the side of freedom and opportunity.

We have young people coming to this country who want and will achieve an education and then we send them home. In my view, we should staple a green card to every diploma of every foreign student the moment they walk through that graduation line so they can bring their ideas and creativity to our society.

The constant infusion of new blood, new people, and new ideas isn't a threat, it is who we are and it is what made us what we are--again, in the words of Abraham Lincoln--``the last, best hope of Earth.''

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 75, S. 330.

I further ask that the committee-reported substitute be considered; the Grassley amendment, which is at the desk, be agreed to; the substitute, as amended, be agreed to; the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed; and the motions to reconsider be made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10 a.m. on Tuesday, June 18, 2013; that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; that following any leader remarks, the Senate be in a period of morning business for 1 hour, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each, with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with the Republicans controlling the first half and the majority controlling the final half; that following morning business, the Senate resume consideration of S. 744, the comprehensive immigration reform bill, under the previous order; and finally that the Senate recess from 12:30 p.m. until 2:15 p.m. to allow for the weekly caucus meetings.

There will be up to four rollcall votes at 3 p.m. in relation to the amendments to the immigration bill tomorrow.

If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it adjourn under the previous order.

Madam President, I appreciate the opportunity to talk with the Chairman today to get clarity about the products that will be included in the USDA Biobased Markets Program. The Senator's hard work and vision on the issue of innovation in natural resources industries has provided the essential leadership to support growth in this critical economic sector.

I greatly appreciate the work that she and Senator Cochran did to expand the program's application in this farm bill, including the explicit definition of forest products and the expanded definition of innovation as it applies to the program.

The Senator and I both represent States that have strong forest products industries in fact in Maine there are over 16,700 people who are employed by the forestry, logging, wood products, and pulp and paper industries. This industry also helps ensure that Maine's 233,000 family woodland owners have income to conserve and sustain their working forests. Both of our States' forest-based economies have been hit hard by the downturn in the housing market as well as increased pressure overseas so it is important that we do not further hinder them in any way.

I have learned recently of the USDA Biobased Markets Program and the fact that in some cases, this program favors foreign products and other biobased products over forest products, which are some of the most biobased products in existence.

I would like to clarify that it is not the Committee's or the Senator's intent to exclude forest products from this program. And I would also like to clarify the meaning of the new provisions around innovation in the program.

Let me give the Senator an example of a forest products manufacturer in my home state that I believe is incredibly innovative in how they grow and source their materials for their products.

Verso Paper Company has 1600 employees at their two mills in Bucksport and Jay. They make coated commercial printing papers that utilize manufacturing technologies that deliver increasingly improved print quality through new coating formulations that incorporate newly developed chemicals and materials. These products are some of the most biobased products in the marketplace and should be eligible for the program.

In addition to these changes in their product, Verso has also in the last few years, significantly increased innovation in the sourcing of their products, by increasing the amount of certified, sustainable fiber that feeds their mills.

An improvement in this year's bill is the addition of language that allows for innovation in the sourcing and application of biobased products. In regards to innovation in sourcing of biobased products does the Senator agree that innovations like forest certification systems would qualify products for the program?

I thank the Senator. And what about companies like Robbins Lumber in Maine that produces solid wood products, like 2x4s or flooring? While the product may be the same product that has been on the market for decades, the company producing it now generates all the heating for the mill and offices as well as the energy for drying lumber from their own biomass waste, as compared with using energy from the grid. Further, they have worked with several organizations to permanently conserve thousands of acres of land for wildlife habitat and recreation.

I thank the Senator. Again I truly appreciate the attention to this issue and look forward to working with you and USDA in the implementation of this legislation to support the important forest products industry which has been an integral part of the economy of this country for centuries.