Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Fire- Damaged Home Rebuilding Act.

This legislation is simple. It allows families living in federally- designated flood plains to rebuild their home in the event it is destroyed by a fire.

The bill allows communities to waive requirements that were meant to block reconstruction after floods, but which have been applied to block reconstruction of homes after fires and other natural disasters as well.

I was first made aware of this issue by a constituent from Sacramento, Jennifer Taylor. Her home in the Natomas neighborhood burned down, and she was denied when she applied for a permit to rebuild it. The county informed her that Federal floodplain regulations required her to elevate the home 20 feet above ground level because of existing deficiencies in the levee protecting her neighborhood.

Can you imagine what that would look like? Every house in the neighborhood at ground level, and one home towering 20 feet above the rest?

More importantly though, the cost would be exorbitant, and would not be covered by her insurance. Instead, the cost would be imposed on a family trying to get back on its feet after a personal tragedy.

When the home burned down, the family collected $71,000 from their insurance company. Contractors estimated the cost to restore the home to its original condition was $170,000--a significant burden, but one the family was willing to bear.

But when the family factored in the cost of elevating their home 20 feet, the cost skyrocketed. Contractors estimated the elevation project would cost an additional $200,000.

Just to restore their home to its previous size and condition, the family would owe $300,000 more than what they received from their insurance.

There is a fundamental issue of fairness at stake.

This family tragically lost their home and many of their personal belongings. But instead of helping the family during this difficult time, the Federal Government is instead blocking them from rebuilding. Why? Because the Federal Government has failed to maintain adequate flood protection.

It just doesn't seem fair.

The Fire-Damaged Home Rebuilding Act addresses this issue by allowing local communities to grant variances to federal flood plain regulations without jeopardizing their participation in the program.

The legislation allows waivers to be granted only if all of the following conditions are met: communities must already have taken steps to repair damaged levees, such as seeking Federal authorization of a levee project, and there must be previously existing plans to obtain the requisite 100-year flood protection in the near future.

The destroyed house must be within a deep floodplain where it would be too expensive and unsightly to elevate the home.

The new home must be built within the footprint of the destroyed structure.

The homeowner cannot qualify for new insurance discounts; and the property has never been associated with a claim to the National Flood Insurance Program.

These limitations will only allow families to rebuild very limited circumstances after tragedy strikes that is unrelated to a flooding event. The number of waivers local governments can approve is capped at ten per year so that this authority is not subject to abuse. This limit will ensure that waivers are used prudently and sparingly.

I strongly oppose new development in the flood plain. It is irresponsible to permit new homes or businesses to be constructed without adequate mitigation in an area where you know that flooding is likely.

The Federal floodplain regulations were put in place to block individual homeowners from voluntarily renovating and improving their homes. They were also designed to block homeowners from rebuilding after a flood. By doing so, the Federal Government limits its liability for future flood insurance claims.

Fire-damaged homes clearly represent an exception to these circumstances, however. So we need to adjust the law to eliminate an unfortunate and unintended consequence of an otherwise good policy.

City and county governments must be empowered to make case by case judgments about whether it makes sense to elevate damaged structures by 10, 15, or 20 feet when the rest of the neighborhood remains at ground level.

That is exactly what the Fire-Damaged Home Reconstruction Act does. It provides limited authority to local governments, which will allow them to do what makes sense for their communities and will allow families to rebuild after a fire or other non-flood disaster.

This is a commonsense piece of legislation and I hope my colleagues will work to quickly adopt the bill.

Mr. President, I wish to express my strong support for Michael Botticelli as nominee to be the Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy.

Mr. Botticelli has more than two decades of experience supporting those who have been affected by substance use and abuse.

Prior to joining the Office of National Drug Control Policy in 2012, when he was confirmed as the Deputy Director, Mr. Botticelli served as the director of the Bureau of Substance Abuse Services at the Massachusetts Department of Public Health.

While there, he expanded prevention, treatment, and recovery services, and worked to implement evidence-based programs, including a youth treatment system, early intervention and treatment programs, and overdose prevention programs.

During Mr. Botticelli's tenure as director of the Bureau of Substance Abuse Services, he confronted the issues of heroin and prescription drug abuse head-on and worked to ensure that police officers in Quincy, MA were trained and equipped to resuscitate overdose victims using naloxone, an emergency opioid overdose reversal medication.

Since October 2010, Quincy police officers have administered naloxone 220 times, almost always resulting in successful overdose reversal. This program has been replicated in communities throughout the country.

As chairman of the Senate Caucus on International Narcotics Control, I had the opportunity to work closely with Mr. Botticelli during his time as Deputy Director and Acting Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy.

Most recently, Mr. Botticelli testified at a hearing I chaired to address America's addiction to prescription opioids and heroin, where he emphasized the need for increased prescriber education to reduce prescription drug abuse and expanded access to naloxone nationwide.

In addition, Mr. Botticelli has committed to working with my office to address the import, manufacture, and distribution of dangerous synthetic drugs, which take far too many lives, far too early. At a previous hearing on the topic, he provided valuable insight into the threat that synthetic drugs pose and it is my hope that we can continue to work together as the Senate considers legislation to address this threat.

Mr. Botticelli has also been very clear about the fact that marijuana remains illegal under the Federal Controlled Substances Act, and has done much to disavow the notion that marijuana is harmless.

As a person in recovery himself, Mr. Botticelli brings a unique perspective to the Office of National Drug Control Policy. I believe this perspective will enable him to successfully implement a national drug control strategy that recognizes the need for both supply and demand reduction and appropriately incorporates an effective public health approach that is coupled with law enforcement efforts.

I look forward to continuing to work with Mr. Botticelli as he leads the Office of National Drug Control Policy in implementing a whole of government approach to combatting illegal and illicit drug use.

I believe Michael Botticelli will serve with distinction as the Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, and I urge my colleagues to confirm his nomination.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the California Desert Conservation and Recreation Act, a piece of legislation that serves as an update to the historic California Desert Protection Act of 1994.

This bill reflects our attempt to achieve consensus among the various uses of desert land and the many stakeholders involved. This bill is bipartisan and it charts a commonsense path forward for the California desert.

It protects additional desert land. It helps manage my State's natural resources. It balances competing interests. It includes provisions on recreation and renewable energy development.

Overall, it ensures that the California desert will remain what it is today: a true American treasure.

This bill has been a long time in the making.

Only three months after I was sworn in as Senator, in January 1993, I introduced the Desert Protection Act. I picked up where my predecessors left off, and President Clinton signed the bill into law in October 1994.

This law was the largest land conservation designation in the continental United States:

It protected or increased existing protection for 9.6 million acres of desert land.

It established the iconic national parks of Joshua Tree and Death Valley, as well as the Mojave National Preserve.

It helped save habitats for endangered species.

It continues to attract millions of tourists to southern California-- a boon for the economy.

It has ensured that the beautiful landscapes will be enjoyed for generations.

I recently visited the desert to celebrate the 20-year anniversary of that legislation becoming law. I was once again reminded how stunning the special land is. Simply put, it is an icon of the American West.

I became even more convinced: now is the time to do even more.

This is why I am introducing new legislation--to build upon the legacy of 1994.

The bill I am introducing today has a simple goal: to help manage California's desert resources with a well-planned approach that balances conservation, recreation, energy production and other needs.

This bill is first and foremost a bipartisan bill. It brings so many groups together:

Environmental groups; State and local governments; the off-road community; cattle ranchers; mining interests; the Defense Department; energy companies; California's public utility companies; and many others.

To account for all the uses of the desert, this whole effort was based on

an attempt to find consensus. We have worked very hard over the years to build that consensus.

We have consulted these stakeholders over the past 6 years. We have had thousands of hours of discussions. They have provided invaluable input and I am grateful for all of them coming to the table.

The cornerstone of the legislation is the creation of two new national monuments:

First is the Mojave Trails National Monument, which would encompass 965,000 acres. Of that, 196,000 acres is Caetellus lands, the areas acquired or donated to the Federal Government between 1999 and 2004 with the purpose of conserving land for the American public.

It should be noted that this donated land, which stretches from the Mexican border to San Bernardino county, was the largest land donation to the U.S. Government in the continental United States. But recently, the aim to conserve it was threatened by the development of some solar energy projects. That is why this bill is necessary: to ensure that the intention of those generous donors, to protect this land in perpetuity, is actually realized.

The second monument designation is the Sand to Snow National Monument. This would be made up of 135,000 acres of land from the desert floor in the Coachella Valley to the top of Mount San Gorgonio.

The Mojave Trails National Monument is essential as it contains important wildlife corridors and habitats. The Sand to Snow National Monument, likewise, would be one of the most environmentally diverse monuments in the country, including habitat for 240 species of migrating and breeding birds.

The bill has many other conservation provisions including: designating six BLM wilderness areas, covering 250,000 acres of land, designating 77 miles along 4 waterways as Wild and Scenic River; adding land to the Death Valley National Park, 39,000 acres, Mojave National Preserve, 22,000 acres, and Joshua Tree National Park, 4,500 acres.

Conserving pristine desert land such as this is most definitely in the interests of our country. The California desert is a very special place and it deserves to stay that way.

The bill also designates five existing BLM Off-Highway Vehicle Areas, covering approximately 142,000 acres of desert, as permanent Off- Highway Vehicle, OHV, recreation areas.

As has been stated, the desert has many uses, and motorists have long used the area for recreation. These provisions give off-highway enthusiasts the certainty they need. Their use of the desert will be protected as much as conservation areas are.

In fact, in this regard we have had success in recent years. Congressman Paul Cook and I brokered an agreement for the mixed use of Johnson Valley, which was the subject of debate between the Marine Corps and off-road vehicle enthusiasts. We brought the parties together and reached a compromise. We made clear what land was for off-roading, what land was for Marine Corps training only and what land was to be shared.

This model of compromise should be instructive. When the parties come together, as they have in the case of this bill, we can achieve an equitable and fair distribution of the land.

Another use of the desert land that we must take into account is renewable energy.

Let me be clear: developing cleaner energy is important for California's economy and for our efforts to fight global warming.

But I also feel strongly that we must be very careful where these facilities are located.

Balancing conservation, development and other uses is possible, we just need to come up with the right solutions. Thankfully, some of these compromises are already in place.

In April 2009 there were 28 solar and wind energy proposals on lands proposed to be included in the Mojave Trails National Monument, including sites on former Catellus lands intended for permanent conservation.

I visited some of those sites at the time, including one particularly beautiful area known as the Broadwell Valley, where thousands of acres of pristine lands were proposed for development. Seeing it first hand, I quickly came to the conclusion that those lands were simply not the right place for renewable energy development.

Since then, 26 of the 28 applications have been withdrawn. So what happened in the nearly 6 years since then?

First, the Energy and Interior Departments developed new solar energy zones. These zones allow projects to be developed on lands least likely to harm plant and wildlife species, and allow projects to be completed faster and with fewer conflicts. This is a smart compromise.

Second, California has worked closely with Federal agencies to develop the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan. This blueprint will help identify pristine lands that warrant protection and direct energy projects elsewhere.

Today, none of the land proposed for renewable development or transmission as part of these initiatives conflicts with the conservation proposed in this bill.

This is a fair balancing of priorities, and I think it provides a clear path forward.

The bill I am introducing also takes additional action to help promote responsible renewable energy development.

Specifically, the bill requires the Interior Department to exchange approximately 370,000 acres of small, isolated parcels of State land for Federal land. By swapping state land that is often surrounded by wilderness and national parks for other federal land, these exchanges will provide California with sites for renewable energy production, recreation or other uses.

I strongly urge my colleagues to take a good look at this legislation. I hope they understand that the many stakeholders involved have made their voices heard. The text of this legislation represents a consensus effort.

Most importantly, I hope they recognize the simple fact that desert conservation has never been a partisan issue.

Over the years, legislators have come together across party lines to preserve this great piece of land.

Given our past success, I am hopeful this Congress will take this legislation up and move it forward. It is the right thing to do, and the California desert needs it.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the California Desert Conservation and Recreation Act, a piece of legislation that serves as an update to the historic California Desert Protection Act of 1994.

This bill reflects our attempt to achieve consensus among the various uses of desert land and the many stakeholders involved. This bill is bipartisan and it charts a commonsense path forward for the California desert.

It protects additional desert land. It helps manage my State's natural resources. It balances competing interests. It includes provisions on recreation and renewable energy development.

Overall, it ensures that the California desert will remain what it is today: a true American treasure.

This bill has been a long time in the making.

Only three months after I was sworn in as Senator, in January 1993, I introduced the Desert Protection Act. I picked up where my predecessors left off, and President Clinton signed the bill into law in October 1994.

This law was the largest land conservation designation in the continental United States:

It protected or increased existing protection for 9.6 million acres of desert land.

It established the iconic national parks of Joshua Tree and Death Valley, as well as the Mojave National Preserve.

It helped save habitats for endangered species.

It continues to attract millions of tourists to southern California-- a boon for the economy.

It has ensured that the beautiful landscapes will be enjoyed for generations.

I recently visited the desert to celebrate the 20-year anniversary of that legislation becoming law. I was once again reminded how stunning the special land is. Simply put, it is an icon of the American West.

I became even more convinced: now is the time to do even more.

This is why I am introducing new legislation--to build upon the legacy of 1994.

The bill I am introducing today has a simple goal: to help manage California's desert resources with a well-planned approach that balances conservation, recreation, energy production and other needs.

This bill is first and foremost a bipartisan bill. It brings so many groups together:

Environmental groups; State and local governments; the off-road community; cattle ranchers; mining interests; the Defense Department; energy companies; California's public utility companies; and many others.

To account for all the uses of the desert, this whole effort was based on

an attempt to find consensus. We have worked very hard over the years to build that consensus.

We have consulted these stakeholders over the past 6 years. We have had thousands of hours of discussions. They have provided invaluable input and I am grateful for all of them coming to the table.

The cornerstone of the legislation is the creation of two new national monuments:

First is the Mojave Trails National Monument, which would encompass 965,000 acres. Of that, 196,000 acres is Caetellus lands, the areas acquired or donated to the Federal Government between 1999 and 2004 with the purpose of conserving land for the American public.

It should be noted that this donated land, which stretches from the Mexican border to San Bernardino county, was the largest land donation to the U.S. Government in the continental United States. But recently, the aim to conserve it was threatened by the development of some solar energy projects. That is why this bill is necessary: to ensure that the intention of those generous donors, to protect this land in perpetuity, is actually realized.

The second monument designation is the Sand to Snow National Monument. This would be made up of 135,000 acres of land from the desert floor in the Coachella Valley to the top of Mount San Gorgonio.

The Mojave Trails National Monument is essential as it contains important wildlife corridors and habitats. The Sand to Snow National Monument, likewise, would be one of the most environmentally diverse monuments in the country, including habitat for 240 species of migrating and breeding birds.

The bill has many other conservation provisions including: designating six BLM wilderness areas, covering 250,000 acres of land, designating 77 miles along 4 waterways as Wild and Scenic River; adding land to the Death Valley National Park, 39,000 acres, Mojave National Preserve, 22,000 acres, and Joshua Tree National Park, 4,500 acres.

Conserving pristine desert land such as this is most definitely in the interests of our country. The California desert is a very special place and it deserves to stay that way.

The bill also designates five existing BLM Off-Highway Vehicle Areas, covering approximately 142,000 acres of desert, as permanent Off- Highway Vehicle, OHV, recreation areas.

As has been stated, the desert has many uses, and motorists have long used the area for recreation. These provisions give off-highway enthusiasts the certainty they need. Their use of the desert will be protected as much as conservation areas are.

In fact, in this regard we have had success in recent years. Congressman Paul Cook and I brokered an agreement for the mixed use of Johnson Valley, which was the subject of debate between the Marine Corps and off-road vehicle enthusiasts. We brought the parties together and reached a compromise. We made clear what land was for off-roading, what land was for Marine Corps training only and what land was to be shared.

This model of compromise should be instructive. When the parties come together, as they have in the case of this bill, we can achieve an equitable and fair distribution of the land.

Another use of the desert land that we must take into account is renewable energy.

Let me be clear: developing cleaner energy is important for California's economy and for our efforts to fight global warming.

But I also feel strongly that we must be very careful where these facilities are located.

Balancing conservation, development and other uses is possible, we just need to come up with the right solutions. Thankfully, some of these compromises are already in place.

In April 2009 there were 28 solar and wind energy proposals on lands proposed to be included in the Mojave Trails National Monument, including sites on former Catellus lands intended for permanent conservation.

I visited some of those sites at the time, including one particularly beautiful area known as the Broadwell Valley, where thousands of acres of pristine lands were proposed for development. Seeing it first hand, I quickly came to the conclusion that those lands were simply not the right place for renewable energy development.

Since then, 26 of the 28 applications have been withdrawn. So what happened in the nearly 6 years since then?

First, the Energy and Interior Departments developed new solar energy zones. These zones allow projects to be developed on lands least likely to harm plant and wildlife species, and allow projects to be completed faster and with fewer conflicts. This is a smart compromise.

Second, California has worked closely with Federal agencies to develop the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan. This blueprint will help identify pristine lands that warrant protection and direct energy projects elsewhere.

Today, none of the land proposed for renewable development or transmission as part of these initiatives conflicts with the conservation proposed in this bill.

This is a fair balancing of priorities, and I think it provides a clear path forward.

The bill I am introducing also takes additional action to help promote responsible renewable energy development.

Specifically, the bill requires the Interior Department to exchange approximately 370,000 acres of small, isolated parcels of State land for Federal land. By swapping state land that is often surrounded by wilderness and national parks for other federal land, these exchanges will provide California with sites for renewable energy production, recreation or other uses.

I strongly urge my colleagues to take a good look at this legislation. I hope they understand that the many stakeholders involved have made their voices heard. The text of this legislation represents a consensus effort.

Most importantly, I hope they recognize the simple fact that desert conservation has never been a partisan issue.

Over the years, legislators have come together across party lines to preserve this great piece of land.

Given our past success, I am hopeful this Congress will take this legislation up and move it forward. It is the right thing to do, and the California desert needs it.

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

Madam President, I come today to support legislation to fully fund the Department of Homeland Security, without any extraneous or politically controversial policy riders.

Let me be clear. The immigration provisions that are approved in the House are bill killers. We have now had three votes on cloture. The votes have held steady. It is clear the votes are not here to pass a bill out of the Senate with the riders attached to it.

I just want to speak of the importance of the Department of Homeland Security because I was in the Senate when the Department was developed. It is a combination of 22 agencies. It has over 200,000 employees. Over the years it has become more and more vital to efforts to prevent terrorist attacks on this country.

So how, you might ask? TSA, a member of that Department, funded by that Department, screens airline passengers within the United States, while Customs and Border Protection screens passenger data of travelers entering the country. So it is irresponsible to endanger these missions in the wake of terrorist attacks in Paris, Ottawa, Sydney, and elsewhere.

Secondly, DHS plays a critical role in responding to natural disasters. Resources and personnel from FEMA, which is funded through DHS, are vital in times of flooding, earthquakes, hurricanes, wildfires, and other disasters.

Third, DHS also guards against cyber warfare through network security, electronic crimes investigations, and State and local cybercrime training. So it is hard to fathom delaying $861 million for cyber security the same day we learn about the massive cyber attack against Anthem Blue Cross.

A number of key national security programs unrelated to immigration would also be in danger. These include the Federal Air Marshal Service, the Secret Service, the Transportation Security Administration, and DHS intelligence activities.

Ironically, blocking this bill over immigration riders would also delay increased funding for border patrols and more manpower to combat human smuggling and trafficking, which so many Members of this Congress want.

Holding up this bill will also delay and reduce more than $2.5 billion in grants for State and local law enforcement agencies and emergency responders. This puts our country in jeopardy. These grants help with transit and port security, firefighter assistance, and State homeland security.

Make no mistake, the Department of Homeland Security is very active in securing our borders and deporting dangerous individuals.

It has a wonderful Secretary. I think every Member of this body appreciates Jeh Johnson and knows the role he played with managing the sudden influx of children into our country on the southern border. We know of his effectiveness in bringing together what has been a very ungainly combination of 22 agencies into a smoothly run entity. This must be very disappointing to him.

In fiscal year 2014, Immigration and Customs Enforcement deported 315,943 people, focusing its efforts on removing criminals, and the agency was successful in that goal. Fifty-six percent of those removed last year had been convicted of crimes. That is 177,960 fewer criminals on our streets. I would say good job.

Rather than holding DHS and our national security hostage, I urge my colleagues to support the bill introduced by Senators Mikulski and Shaheen to provide full funding for DHS at levels necessary to do its job. We can't keep funding this agency with short-term continuing resolutions. It doesn't make sense. We certainly can't keep threatening to shut it down.

Yesterday in our joint meeting I had an opportunity to say what this body was like when I came to it. I think I can say with certainty this wouldn't have happened 20 years ago. We would have recognized the importance of the agency and told people to come back with another bill at another time.

The importance of getting some regular order in our appropriations bills is important because we are not getting regular appropriations bills passed. This is so important that I think everyone thought it wouldn't be disturbed. Instead, these policy riders are stuck on it, and the people who put them on know they are offensive to just about half of this body and it is going to present a major challenge to get a bill passed.

Let me talk a little bit about the issue; that is, the five riders that Republicans want to add to the bill. The goal of the riders, I think--and I think everyone would agree with this--is to unravel temporary actions President Obama has taken in an effort to make sense of what is, we all admit, a broken immigration system.

These actions, I would note, wouldn't have been necessary if the House had voted on the bipartisan Senate immigration reform bill that passed in 2013 by a vote of 68 to 32--68 to 32. It was the product of months of intense negotiations and hearings.

I remember it well. There were eight bipartisan Members who negotiated a bill to put before the Judiciary Committee. I am a member of the Judiciary Committee. The Judiciary Committee debated the bill for weeks. A total of some 300 amendments were filed, with 212 amendments in committee that were considered, half of which were Republican, and 136 amendments were adopted.

The House refused to even debate this bill, which in my view--and I have been here a long time--has been the result of one of the most profound bipartisan efforts on a big bill in the last 20 years. The House even refused to recognize it by a debate, let alone a vote, let alone passing something, some part of the bill, so there could be a conference and differences reconciled.

Now the House comes to us by putting what they know are going to be highly problematic riders on what is an absolutely crucial appropriations bill. This is the kind of thing I tried to say yesterday. It just doesn't make sense to me.

It would not have happened some time ago. People would not have tried to force their will through on an important bill when they knew they didn't have the votes. If three votes on cloture don't show that, I don't know what really will.

The Presiding Officer knows this as well as I do. But the root of the problem is that we have more than 11 million unauthorized immigrants in our country, and Congress only provides enough funding to deport around 400,000 people a year. Clearly we can't deport everybody. So choices have to be made.

So do we focus limited enforcement resources on real threats, such as criminals and terrorists? I say yes. Or, do we spread our resources thin, treating murderers the same way we treat school children who have been in the country for years? I say no. I stand firmly with the President in the belief that we must focus on actual threats and we must prioritize.

One of the temporary programs that the other side seeks to eliminate is known as the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals. I hate acronyms, but the acronym is DACA.

This program allows law-abiding individuals brought to the United States as children to remain here without fear of being deported from the only home they have ever known. They can stay for 3-year increments as long as they don't break the law. Republicans want to scrap this program and place these individuals into the same category as dangerous criminals.

In California, my State, that would mean 450,000 young people who were brought to the United States as children, who have lived nowhere else, would immediately be eligible for deportation.

The House riders also seek to remove protections for parents of United States citizens and permanent residents, including 1.1 million parents in California. That would have the effect of breaking up many families that have lived here for years.

I personally know of it happening in San Diego, when, in the middle of the night, immigration officers came into a home, picked up the parents and deported them, leaving the three children in the home. The parents had been here, they were working, they had paid their taxes, and now the children were left. Fortunately, as I understand that incident, relatives were able to come because the children were born here, and they helped to take care of them. But we can imagine the cases where there was no one to help. So this clearly has an effect of breaking up many

families that may have lived here for years.

So let me be clear. The political--I really believe they are political--riders weighing down this appropriations bill are not designed to fix our immigration system but rather to weaken it--and with the goal of embarrassing the President. We should not do that on any bill--let alone a bill as important as this one.

It is not just Senate Democrats who think these riders are bad policy. Sixty-two percent of Americans in last month's January poll supported ``an Executive Order that would allow some illegal immigrants already in the United States to stay here temporarily and apply for a work permit if certain requirements are met.'' So 62 percent of the people said yes to that question. That is precisely what the President has done.

A combined 69 percent of Americans supported an immigration policy that lets unauthorized immigrants remain in the United States, 54 percent supported a path to citizenship, and another 15 percent supported legal status but no path to citizenship.

So to the extent we get our guidance from the American people rather than from this or that political party, we can see what the view of Americans are on this. I think it is because we have had this issue debated in this forum several times. This isn't the first big immigration bill. It is the second in about the last 6 or 8 years that has come out of committee, come to the floor with an agreement, and fallen apart. And it had been negotiated in a bipartisan manner.

So then to have this bill that we passed go to the House, and the House would have a legitimate chance to make any amendments they might want to make--rather than put this rider on this bill--and pass over to us a bill which could then go to conference and we could work on around a table--the way business should be done--to come together to present what we can agree upon in both Houses to pass into law.

That is the process here, and that is one of the really big changes in this body over recent history. We always tried to follow regular order. Appropriations bills in regular order now are really nonexistent. It is really too bad because it weakens the committee structure, it weakens the institution as a whole, it makes us beholden to a few, and it doesn't do the people's business. And, as I said yesterday, it is one of the reasons why our favorability rating as a Congress is something near 16 percent favorable.

So I say, please, let's take these policy riders off. Let's learn from the experience. Let's pass this bill. It is a new Congress. I recognize the bill has to be reintroduced, but the immigration bill certainly can be reintroduced. We have had a lot of experience in working it, and we can do it once again. Then perhaps the House would be willing to look at it, to debate it, and maybe even then to give us the respect of voting on it.

Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, even though we have made great strides in the treatment and diagnosis of breast cancer, this disease continues to be the second leading cause of death for women in the United States.

When women receive their mammography report and it comes out normal, they usually move on with their day thinking everything is just fine. This may be the case, but for women with dense breast tissue this ``normal'' report doesn't capture the whole picture. This is because cancer may still be present and missed on their mammogram because it is obscured by dense breast tissue.

It is vital for women to be told this simple, yet potentially life- saving, information about their own health so they can discuss with their doctor if additional screening makes sense for them. That could be the difference between catching breast cancer early and surviving, or waiting until its too late because you were never told your full medical information.

Even though there is a risk for cancer being missed, when women receive their mammogram report there is currently no federal requirement to include notice that they have dense breast tissue. This is the case even though the radiologist makes that determination upon reading the mammogram

This bill is a simple solution. It requires that women be informed on the mammogram report, that they already receive, if they have dense breast tissue, and that they may want to talk with their doctor if they have questions and if they might benefit from additional screening. Withholding this kind of medical information from women just doesn't make any sense.

This bill doesn't change any state laws. It sets a minimum Federal standard, so any state that wants to have additional reporting requirements may do so. The bill also requires the Department of Health and Human Services to focus on research and improved screening for patients with dense breast tissue. Early detection is the key to beating cancer. Every patient deserves access to their own information, especially when it may be what saves their life.

I want to thank Senator Ayotte for working with me on this bill. I urge my colleagues to join us, and Senators Gillibrand, Boxer, Heitkamp, Baldwin, Brown, Mikulski, Stabenow, Capito, Shaheen, Casey, Hirono, McCaskill, and Warren in cosponsoring the Breast Density and Mammography Reporting Act. This bill is supported by organizations including the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, Are You Dense Advocacy, Breast Cancer Fund, and Susan G. Komen.

I look forward to working with my colleagues on this important issue.

Mr. President, even though we have made great strides in the treatment and diagnosis of breast cancer, this disease continues to be the second leading cause of death for women in the United States.

When women receive their mammography report and it comes out normal, they usually move on with their day thinking everything is just fine. This may be the case, but for women with dense breast tissue this ``normal'' report doesn't capture the whole picture. This is because cancer may still be present and missed on their mammogram because it is obscured by dense breast tissue.

It is vital for women to be told this simple, yet potentially life- saving, information about their own health so they can discuss with their doctor if additional screening makes sense for them. That could be the difference between catching breast cancer early and surviving, or waiting until its too late because you were never told your full medical information.

Even though there is a risk for cancer being missed, when women receive their mammogram report there is currently no federal requirement to include notice that they have dense breast tissue. This is the case even though the radiologist makes that determination upon reading the mammogram

This bill is a simple solution. It requires that women be informed on the mammogram report, that they already receive, if they have dense breast tissue, and that they may want to talk with their doctor if they have questions and if they might benefit from additional screening. Withholding this kind of medical information from women just doesn't make any sense.

This bill doesn't change any state laws. It sets a minimum Federal standard, so any state that wants to have additional reporting requirements may do so. The bill also requires the Department of Health and Human Services to focus on research and improved screening for patients with dense breast tissue. Early detection is the key to beating cancer. Every patient deserves access to their own information, especially when it may be what saves their life.

I want to thank Senator Ayotte for working with me on this bill. I urge my colleagues to join us, and Senators Gillibrand, Boxer, Heitkamp, Baldwin, Brown, Mikulski, Stabenow, Capito, Shaheen, Casey, Hirono, McCaskill, and Warren in cosponsoring the Breast Density and Mammography Reporting Act. This bill is supported by organizations including the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, Are You Dense Advocacy, Breast Cancer Fund, and Susan G. Komen.

I look forward to working with my colleagues on this important issue.

Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong support for the Clay Hunt Suicide Prevention for American Veterans-- SAV--Act, of which I am a cosponsor.

This bill addresses a true public health crisis facing our Nation's military members and veterans: suicide. You see, an estimated 22 veterans commit suicide every day. According to data from the Department of Veterans Affairs, VA, young veterans are particularly at risk, dying by suicide more often than both Active-Duty troops and civilians. In fact, the Department of Defense, DOD, reports that in 2012 and 2013 more veterans died by committing suicide than died in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. This is a serious problem that must be addressed.

The legislation being considered today is named for a marine who served in Iraq and Afghanistan and who committed suicide in 2011. He was 28. After being honorably discharged from the Marine Corps, Clay Hunt sought VA medical care for post-traumatic stress disorder. He constantly voiced concerns about the care he was receiving, both in terms of scheduling and the treatment received, which consisted solely of medication.

Clay decided to move closer to his family but had to wait months to see a psychiatrist at the VA medical center. After the appointment, Clay called his mother on his way home and told her that the VA is way too stressful of a place and that he can't go back. Two weeks later, Clay took his own life. Despite Clay Hunt's proactive and open approach to seeking care to address his injuries, the VA system did not adequately address his needs.

Unfortunately, this story is far too common. In 2014, Jeremy Sears, a Camp Pendleton, CA, marine who survived several tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, also took his own life after struggling to receive adequate care from the San Diego VA Medical Center. It took the VA 16 months to respond to Jeremy's disability claim. After the long wait, Jeremy received a letter that he had been denied all disability payments, despite reporting symptoms of traumatic brain injury and hearing loss from his military service. The 35-year-old former Camp Pendleton marine tragically took his own life almost 2 years after being discharged from service.

These tragedies are unacceptable, and it is our moral duty to ensure that the men and women who bravely serve our country have access to the mental health care needed to address serious mental health conditions like depression and post-traumatic stress disorder.

What does this bill do? The SAV Act is an important bill that will improve the delivery of mental health care to veterans and will address obstacles in the VA and DOD health care systems.

Under this bill, special care and attention will be given to service personnel transitioning from Active-Duty to veteran status through community outreach and peer support groups. The legislation also calls for a one-stop Web site with suicide prevention resources for veterans. In addition, to make recruitment of mental health professionals easier, the bill creates new incentives for psychiatrists who agree to serve at the VA. Both Department of Defense and VA suicide-prevention programs will also be required to be evaluated each year to increase accountability and improve care. Lastly, this bill empowers the VA to collaborate with Veteran Service Organizations and nonprofit mental health organizations to combat veteran suicide.

Suicide is a deadly epidemic for veterans that the Federal Government must address. This bill will be a starting point, by requiring the VA to prioritize suicide prevention. However, Congress must continue to work to address this critical public health issue,

and I hope this will be one of many steps we will take to prevent veteran and military suicides.

I urge all of my colleagues to support the passage of the Clay Hunt Suicide Prevention for American Veterans, SAV, Act.

Madam President, today I have submitted a resolution with Senator Kirk recognizing January as National Slavery and Trafficking Prevention Month. We are pleased to be joined by Senators Leahy, Toomey, Klobuchar, Coons, Rubio, Murray, Wyden, Brown, Shaheen, Gillibrand, Kaine, Heitkamp, King, and Markey in sponsoring this resolution.

January 1 is the anniversary of the effective date of the Emancipation Proclamation, and February 1 is the anniversary of the date that President Abraham Lincoln signed the joint resolution sending the Thirteenth Amendment--which abolished slavery--to the States for ratification.

In 2009, the Senate unanimously approved a resolution I introduced to establish January as Human Trafficking Awareness Month. That resolution was made to raise awareness of, and opposition to, the human trafficking. It is important that we continue to bring attention to and raise awareness of this horrific practice.

Human trafficking is a crime in which persons are forced to work against their will in sweatshops, prostitution rings, farms, private homes, and other enterprises. The traffickers use force, threats of force, and coercion to ensure that their victims believe they have no other choice but to work for their captors. Frequently, human trafficking goes undetected because the victims are not only afraid of their traffickers, but they have been taught by their traffickers to fear law enforcement.

Human trafficking is estimated to be a $32 billion criminal enterprise, making it the second largest criminal industry in the world, behind the drug trade. A 2014 Urban Institute study found that pimps in Atlanta can make nearly $33,000 in just one week, which amounts to over $1.7 million a year. The overwhelming majority of sex trafficking victims in the United States are American citizens--83 percent by one estimate from the Department of Justice.

Unfortunately, children are often victims of this horrendous crime. The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children has reported that one in seven endangered runaways are victims of sex trafficking.

Many of these children continue to be exploited into adulthood. A study of women and girls involved in street prostitution in my hometown of San Francisco found that 82 percent had been physically assaulted, 83 percent were threatened with a weapon, and 68 percent were raped.

Unfortunately, such abuse is common around the world. According to the United Nations, there are nearly 21 million people currently serving in some form of involuntary servitude. The United Nations also reported that in 16 percent of the 138 countries studied, there was not one trafficking-related conviction between 2007 and 2010.

Over the past decade, Congress has taken action to enhance the tools available to prosecute perpetrators of human trafficking and to assist and protect trafficking victims. We passed the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 and, 8 years later, passed the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act. These laws strengthened Federal efforts to combat international and domestic human trafficking by expanding administrative subpoena authority, increasing penalties for traffickers, and authorizing the Justice Department to seek preventive detention of those charged with trafficking offenses.

Despite these important laws, further action is needed. Earlier this year, Senator Portman and I introduced the Combat Human Trafficking Act of 2015. This bill would reduce the demand for human trafficking, particularly the commercial sexual exploitation of children, by holding buyers accountable and making it easier for law enforcement to investigate and prosecute all persons who participate in sex trafficking.

In addition, I am pleased to join Senator Kirk in introducing the Stop Advertising Victims of Exploitation Act or the SAVE Act. This bill would strike at child sex trafficking where it is increasingly occurring--the Internet--by prohibiting Internet companies from profiting from allowing their websites to be used to traffic children.

We must act with urgency to end the practice of human trafficking. For every day we wait, more lives are damaged by this horrible practice.

I urge my colleagues to join me in observing National Slavery and Trafficking Prevention Month to draw attention to human trafficking and to renew our collective efforts to eliminate this practice in the United States and around the world.

Mr. President, I wish to speak in opposition to the Keystone XL Pipeline. This bill will not help our economy, it will not create permanent jobs, and it certainly is not a boon to the environment. On item after item, the Keystone pipeline just doesn't make sense for the United States.

When we last debated Keystone in November, the price for a barrel of oil was about $75. That price was already down from a peak of $100 in 2014, and since then the price has dropped another $25, to less than $50 a barrel.

In November, the average price of gas was nearly $3 per gallon. This week, gas averages around $2.20 per gallon--the cheapest in nearly six years--and many States are seeing gas under $2 per gallon.

In fact, since this pipeline was first proposed in 2008, America has gone from the third largest producer of oil to the world's largest producer, surpassing both Russia and Saudi Arabia. As a result of new production and increasing fuel economy, the final months of 2014 saw the lowest net imports of crude oil since 1986.

The Keystone Pipeline is simply not necessary for America's energy independence.

Even worse, the oil that moves through the pipeline isn't necessarily for the benefit of the United States. Instead, the pipeline would be a conduit to move the oil from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico, where it will be refined and sold on the global market. Some individual barrels may be kept in the United States, but much will be exported and prices will be set by international supply and demand. The State Department's review projected that building a pipeline would have ``little impact on the prices U.S. consumers pay for refined products such as gasoline.'' I fail to see how the United States gains any economic benefit from this project.

Finally, Keystone supporters often argue that the pipeline creates large numbers of jobs. It is great that this project will create nearly 2,000 direct construction jobs over 2 years, and more indirectly. Unfortunately, those jobs are temporary. That means once the pipeline is complete in two years, operating the pipeline will support only around 50 permanent jobs.

The American economy won't benefit from this bill. American companies won't benefit. American drivers won't benefit, and American workers won't benefit. The economic policies behind the pipeline just don't make sense.

Unfortunately, the problems also don't end with the lack of economic value. This project also comes with substantial hazards for the environment. Extracting oil from these tar sands would essentially mean the destruction of huge swaths of land in Alberta. The tar sands are beneath 54,000 square miles of boreal forest and peat bog, an area the size of the state of New York.

An estimated 20 percent of the deposits require destructive surface mining, which entails clearing huge swathes of boreal forest and top soil to get at the tar sands beneath. Already, 175,000 acres of forest have been cleared, but an additional 1 million acres of forest have already been leased for surface mining operations.

This destructive form of mining generates large volumes of toxic wastewater, which must be stored in vast tailings ponds that already cover around 70 square miles. These tailings contain high concentrations of benzene and other carcinogens, as well as lead and mercury. Significantly higher levels of these pollutants have been found downstream from tar sands refineries, leading to higher rates of cancers, including leukemia and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.

The development of these tar sands will have negative effects on the environment and public health, and it has also contributed significantly to Canada's failure to fulfill its Kyoto Protocol obligations. I believe that Canada should rethink its approach to tar sands development.

Finally, I wish like to address climate change. No matter how hard some of my colleagues hope climate change isn't real, it is, and we are already seeing harmful effects.

Transforming the oil from tar sands into useful gasoline is 80 percent more carbon intensive than the processing of typical crude oil. Producing, refining, and combusting the oil that Keystone would carry will release up to 168 million metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions every year. That is 27 million metric tons more greenhouse gas emissions than would be emitted from burning the same amount of typical crude oil. To put this in context, those additional emissions over normal processing are equivalent to the annual emissions from 5.7 million cars, 1.4 million homes or nearly 8 coal-fired power plants.

The economics of the Keystone Pipeline don't make sense, and the environmental risks could well be tragic. We

are being asked to approve a project that will primarily benefit Canadian companies and foreign oil markets, while at the same time accepting the consequences of the harm the pipeline and tar sands oil would create.

If this is about jobs, let's invest in clean energy. The Shaheen- Portman energy efficiency bill, for example, is estimated to create 190,000 jobs. If our goal is to lower fuel costs for American families, let's speed up improvements to fuel economy standards. If we want to modernize our infrastructure, let's get to work on a real transportation reauthorization bill. And if our aim is to exploit our energy resources, let's focus on wind and solar, biofuels, or the future of batteries and fuel cells.

We can do better than the Keystone Pipeline, both for our economy and for the environment. I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Keystone Pipeline.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce bipartisan legislation with my colleague Senator Portman that would expand the definition of ``homeless'' used by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, HUD, to ensure all homeless children and families are considered eligible for existing Federal homeless assistance programs. This change in the definition would be in alignment with what is already currently used by the U.S. Department of Education.

According to the U.S. Department of Education, approximately 1.2 million children were homeless during the 2012-2013 school year, which accounts fora 6 percent increase from the 1,166,436 homeless students enrolled in the 2011-2012 school year.

In California, 259,656 children experienced homelessness last year. This increase is nearly four times the 65,000 homeless children that were reported in California in 2003.

Unfortunately, the numbers reported by the HUD ``Point-in-Time Count'' fail to accurately reflect the upward trend in homeless families.

According to the 2013 HUD ``Point-in-Time Count,'' there were only 222,197 people counted as homeless in households that included children, a fraction of the number reported by the Department of Education.

This issue is important because only those children and their families counted by HUD are eligible for vital homeless assistance programs. The rest of these children and families are simply out of luck and are turned away by providers that do not want to be reprimanded for not following HUD regulations.

The Homeless Children and Youth Act of 2015 would expand the homeless definition to allow HUD funded homeless assistance programs to serve extremely vulnerable children and families, specifically those staying in self-paid motels or in doubled up situations because they have nowhere else to go.

These families are especially susceptible to physical and sexual abuse, trafficking, and neglect because they are often not served by a case manager, and thus remain hidden from potential social service providers.

As a result of the current narrow HUD definition, communities that receive federal funding through the discretionary grant process are unable to prioritize or direct resources to help these children and families.

This bill would provide communities with the flexibility to use federal funds to meet local priorities.

I would also like to note that this legislation comes at no additional cost to taxpayers and does not impose any new mandates on service providers.

Finally, this legislation improves data collection transparency by requiring HUD to report data on homeless individuals and families currently recorded under the existing Homeless Management Information System survey.

I am pleased that Senator Rob Portman (R-OH) has joined me as an original cosponsor on this bill.

Homelessness continues to plague our Nation. If we fail to address the needs of these children and families today, they will remain invisible and stuck in a cycle of poverty and chronic homelessness.

It is our responsibility to ensure that we do not erect more barriers for these children and families to access services when they are experiencing extreme hardship. I believe this bill is a commonsense solution that will ensure that homeless families and children can receive the help they need.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce bipartisan legislation with my colleague Senator Portman that would expand the definition of ``homeless'' used by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, HUD, to ensure all homeless children and families are considered eligible for existing Federal homeless assistance programs. This change in the definition would be in alignment with what is already currently used by the U.S. Department of Education.

According to the U.S. Department of Education, approximately 1.2 million children were homeless during the 2012-2013 school year, which accounts fora 6 percent increase from the 1,166,436 homeless students enrolled in the 2011-2012 school year.

In California, 259,656 children experienced homelessness last year. This increase is nearly four times the 65,000 homeless children that were reported in California in 2003.

Unfortunately, the numbers reported by the HUD ``Point-in-Time Count'' fail to accurately reflect the upward trend in homeless families.

According to the 2013 HUD ``Point-in-Time Count,'' there were only 222,197 people counted as homeless in households that included children, a fraction of the number reported by the Department of Education.

This issue is important because only those children and their families counted by HUD are eligible for vital homeless assistance programs. The rest of these children and families are simply out of luck and are turned away by providers that do not want to be reprimanded for not following HUD regulations.

The Homeless Children and Youth Act of 2015 would expand the homeless definition to allow HUD funded homeless assistance programs to serve extremely vulnerable children and families, specifically those staying in self-paid motels or in doubled up situations because they have nowhere else to go.

These families are especially susceptible to physical and sexual abuse, trafficking, and neglect because they are often not served by a case manager, and thus remain hidden from potential social service providers.

As a result of the current narrow HUD definition, communities that receive federal funding through the discretionary grant process are unable to prioritize or direct resources to help these children and families.

This bill would provide communities with the flexibility to use federal funds to meet local priorities.

I would also like to note that this legislation comes at no additional cost to taxpayers and does not impose any new mandates on service providers.

Finally, this legislation improves data collection transparency by requiring HUD to report data on homeless individuals and families currently recorded under the existing Homeless Management Information System survey.

I am pleased that Senator Rob Portman (R-OH) has joined me as an original cosponsor on this bill.

Homelessness continues to plague our Nation. If we fail to address the needs of these children and families today, they will remain invisible and stuck in a cycle of poverty and chronic homelessness.

It is our responsibility to ensure that we do not erect more barriers for these children and families to access services when they are experiencing extreme hardship. I believe this bill is a commonsense solution that will ensure that homeless families and children can receive the help they need.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I wish to pay tribute and thank a dedicated and capable individual, Lorenzo Goco, who retired from the Senate on Friday after 20 years of expert service.

For the past 6 years, Lorenzo has served as the deputy staff director of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, SSCI. He has worked on the committee since 1995, when he was brought over by Senator Bob Kerrey. He has seen the highs and the lows of Senate life, and has made a valued contribution to the committee, to the Senate, and to the national security of the United States.

Since the beginning of my chairmanship of the committee in 2009, Lorenzo has been the heart of the Democratic staff. Without drawing attention to himself, he has gotten things done--whether it meant setting the schedule and wrangling agency witnesses to attend on short notice, assisting the intelligence community to see the wisdom of the committee's approach, or bridging the divide between the majority and minority in the rare case of disagreement, Lorenzo kept the committee on track and headed in the right direction.

As the deputy staff director, Lorenzo is responsible for everything but gets the credit for nothing. He has represented the SSCI at the weekly meeting of Democratic staff directors more often than the actual staff director, and he has had my full faith in representing the committee and me countless times. Often, a line of committee staffers will build in front of his door as people seek his advice on how to handle an issue or ask a question about a program.

Classification prevents me from relating on the Senate floor most of the projects that Lorenzo has contributed to or overseen in his time on the committee staff. But they include numerous reviews of CIA covert actions, reviews of acquisition programs by the National Security Agency and the National Reconnaissance Office, and the budget review of the Defense Intelligence Agency.

Due to CIA's declassification of the underlying information, I can say that Lorenzo was part of the committee's excellent work in investigating CIA's role in a shootdown of a missionary plane in Peru. He was instrumental in the committee's report on the prewar intelligence assessments of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, and a constant force behind the staff's work on the Study of CIA's Detention and Interrogation Program.

The committee's success in enacting six intelligence authorization bills in the past 6 years is in good measure a result of Lorenzo's work in drafting the legislation and the classified annexes the contain, working with other committees in the Senate and the House, and negotiating provisions with the executive branch.

There are plenty of congressional staff that are passionate advocates for aggressive action for this cause or that. Other staff focus on protecting their boss and as a result are more judicious and deliberate. Some are experts on process; some are experts on substance. Lorenzo is all of the above. His depth of experience on intelligence matters is unparalleled today in the Senate. He fights strongly for what he believes in, and has at times pushed me to be stronger on a cause than I might otherwise be. But he is always cool, calm, and collected, and manages to navigate the buffeting winds and tempestuous times that we face all too often.

I am sorry to see a key part of my team go, but I wish Lorenzo the best of luck. I have no doubt that he will have more time to spend with his wonderful wife Audrey and his three boys, whom I know are the source of unending pride, and perhaps the occasional bout of parental frustration. With any luck, they'll grow up like their father.

Thank you, Lorenzo, for your steadfast service.

Mr. President, I wish to submit an amendment with my colleagues, Senators Toomey and Flake to correct a major problem with the current Renewable Fuel Standard: the mandate for corn ethanol. We see two major problems with continuing to mandate the consumption of so much corn ethanol each year. The statute currently mandates more corn ethanol than can be used by the current vehicle fleet and gas stations. Roughly 40 percent of the U.S. corn crop is now used to produce ethanol, artificially pushing up food and feed prices while damaging the environment. This amendment offers a simple fix that addresses both problems: elimination of the corn ethanol mandate.

Also, the amendment leaves in place the requirement that oil companies purchase and use low-carbon advanced biofuels, including cellulosic ethanol and biodiesel. This allows the program to focus on the fuels that best address climate change and do not compete with the food supply.

Let me highlight a few of the unintended consequences of the corn ethanol mandate. The policy has led us to use roughly 40 percent of the U.S. corn crop not for food but for fuel, nearly twice the rate in 2006. Using more and more corn for ethanol--in drought years as well as years with bumper crops--places unnecessary pressure on the price of corn.

The Congressional Budget Office estimated in June 2014 that escalating the volume of corn ethanol as currently required by statute would raise the average price of corn about 6 percent by 2017. That would increase food expenditures by $3.5 billion per year by 2017, the equivalent of about $10 per person, which most directly affects families living on the margin.

Internationally, according to Tufts University researchers, the corn ethanol mandate has cost net corn importing countries $11.6 billion in higher corn prices, with more than half that cost, $6.6 billion, borne by developing countries. Higher corn prices also raise prices throughout the food supply chain by raising the cost of animal feed. For the turkey industry alone, the Renewable Fuel Standard raised feed expenses by $1.9 billion in 2013, according to the President of the National Turkey Federation. For the restaurant industry, a recent Price-Waterhouse-Coopers study projects that the corn ethanol mandate would increase costs by up to $3.2 billion a year. For the milk industry, the Western United Dairyman reported in 2013 that a combination of high feed costs and low milk prices put 105 dairies out of business in one year alone.

The corn ethanol mandate also has unintended environmental consequences. In 2013, an investigative report from the Associated Press found using government satellite data that 1.2 million acres of virgin land in Nebraska and the Dakotas alone were

converted to fields of corn and soybeans since 2006. Putting virgin land under cultivation has environmental consequences, including greater runoff, greater use of fertilizer, and less land available for conservation.

Another consequence of the corn ethanol mandate is that it places a regulatory requirement on oil refiners that cannot actually be satisfied--it requires more ethanol than the auto fleet and existing gas stations can accommodate, a concept called the blend wall. Under the RFS, oil refineries are required to blend 15 billion gallons of corn ethanol into the fuel supply in 2015. This far exceeds the roughly 13.5 billion gallons that our current infrastructure can accommodate. According to the Environmental Protection Agency's final 2013 rule, the ``EPA does not currently foresee a scenario in which the market could consume enough ethanol to meet the volumes stated in the statute.'' The Congressional Budget Office confirmed this judgment in its June 2014 report, saying that the statutory goal of escalating corn ethanol volumes would be ``very hard to meet in future years.''

Chevron, which operates oil refineries in my home State, is also concerned that the statutory mandate requires too much ethanol. It is Chevron's judgment that ``the required volume of renewable fuel exceeds the amount that can be safely blended into transportation fuels used by consumers.'' Facing this difficulty, the EPA has been unable to finalize the volume requirements for 2014 or 2015. This leaves the businesses seeking to develop advanced biofuel ventures without any certain prospects to guide their investments and undermines the primary purpose of the Renewable Fuel Standard.

The Corn Ethanol Mandate Elimination Act would address the blend wall directly, thereby allowing EPA to continue increasing volumes of low carbon advanced biofuel.

The corn industry, by contrast, does not depend on the RFS for its livelihood. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office predicts that refiners will continue to blend corn ethanol into the fuel supply in the absence of a mandate, because ethanol is the oil refiner's preferred octane booster and oxygenate.

Ultimately, I believe that this bill would better serve the advanced biofuel industry by removing the blend wall as an obstacle to the industry's expansion, and providing the regulatory certainty that they need to guide their investments. These advanced biofuels have none of the same problems as corn ethanol. They do not compete directly with food, and they reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 50 percent compared to petroleum.

I am also fundamentally committed to the vitally important public health and climate protections provided by the Clean Air Act. That is why I would like to make it crystal clear that this legislation is a narrow bill repealing the corn ethanol mandate. The bill's language explicitly clarifies that the legislation has no effect on the low- carbon advanced biofuel provisions in the Renewable Fuel Standard, and I would oppose any bill that would amend, revise or weaken the advanced biofuel provisions or other public health protections provided by the Clean Air Act.

The elimination of the corn ethanol mandate is a smart, simple reform with support from the prepared food industry, the dairy, beef, and poultry industries, the oil and gas industries, hunger relief organizations, and environmental groups.

The bill solves the problems of the Renewable Fuel Standard while maintaining the provisions that encourage the development, growth, and deployment of cellulosic ethanol, algae-based fuel, biodiesel, and other low-carbon advanced biofuels.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.