Floor Statements

Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill that would provide critical authority to the Department of Veterans Affairs to use enhanced-use leases to engage in public-private partnerships in order to provide supportive housing for homeless veterans at the West Los Angeles Veterans Affairs Medical Campus in California.

Homelessness is a tragedy, and I am deeply concerned that it plagues many of our Nation's brave and honorable veterans. I would like to make you aware, that Los Angeles has the largest concentration of homeless veterans in the United States, currently estimated to be 6,300. What is even more unacceptable is that two buildings on the West Los Angeles Veterans Affairs Campus that can potentially provide supportive housing for a portion of these veterans are currently vacant due to a lack of Federal funding.

There is good news, though. The community of Los Angeles has expressed great interest in leveraging private resources and forging a partnership with the Department of Veterans Affairs to make progress in using these facilities to provide housing and hope for homeless veterans in the area. However, giving this authority to the Secretary of Veteran Affairs requires legislative action, and so I am happy to present to you today the solution that is required.

You should be aware that the solution I am proposing is a finely crafted fix to a previous action Congress took in 2007 to safeguard the West Los Angeles Veterans Affairs Campus. I moved in 2007 to prohibit the ability of the Department of Veterans Affairs to lease or sale any property on the West Los Angeles Campus, due to concerns that these authorities would likely be abused at the detriment to Los Angeles' veterans. Specifically, broad authorities were being used for commercial development displacing prop on the West Los Angeles Veteran Affairs Department, and risked reducing or eliminating the important services this campus provides to veterans. Today is a new day, and my bill will allow a very tightly limited authority to enter into enhanced-use leases at two specific vacant buildings on the campus to be used for the sole purpose of providing supportive housing for veterans who are homeless.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this modification of lease authority in order to make real progress using private dollars to deliver on our promise to California's veterans who have bravely served in the defense of the entire United States. I look forward to working with my colleagues on enacting this authority as soon as feasible.

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

I come to the floor this evening to discuss an issue of national security, and that is how to prevent a nuclear armed Iran.

I was thinking about our troubled history with Iran and whether more sanctions at this time makes sense for our national security interests, and I asked myself these questions:

Can, in fact, a country like Iran change?

Is it possible for an isolated regime to rejoin the community of nations and change its behavior after several decades?

Must a country and its people be held captive because of the behavior of previous leaders in earlier times?

So I thought back in history. I was a young girl during World War II. I remember when Imperial Japan killed millions in Southeast Asia, and particularly in China, during its brutal wars of expansion. Today, Japan is a peaceful democracy and one of this Nation's strongest allies in Asia.

I remember when Hitler and the German Third Reich committed unspeakable atrocities across Europe, including the murder of 6 million Jewish citizens. Germany is now a close ally, a leader in the European Union, an institution created to ensure a war never again occurs in Europe.

I remember General Franco's Spain, which was so diplomatically and economically isolated that it was actually barred from the United Nations until 1955. Spain is now a close partner of the United States and a fully democratic member of the European Union.

The former Yugoslavia, Vietnam, and South Africa have all experienced tremendous change in recent decades. Independent states have emerged from the painful dissolution of Yugoslavia. Vietnam has opened itself to the international community but still has much progress to make. South Africa has shed apartheid and has emerged as an increasingly stable nation on a much divided continent.

So I believe countries can change. This capacity to change also applies to the pursuit of nuclear weapons. At one time, Sweden, South Korea, and Argentina each pursued nuclear weapons.

Following World War II, Sweden pursued nuclear weapons to deter foreign attack. It mastered nuclear technology and built and tested components for a nuclear weapon. It may have even obtained enough nuclear material to build a bomb. But in 1970, it signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, and it ended its nuclear weapon program.

In the early 1970s, South Korea actively sought a nuclear device. The United States heavily pressured South Korea not to go nuclear, and in April 1975, South Korea signed the nonproliferation treaty and halted its nuclear weapons activity.

Throughout the 1980s, when it was ruled by a military junta with an egregious human rights record, Argentina had a covert nuclear weapons program. It built uranium production, enrichment, and reprocessing facilities, and it attempted to develop nuclear-capable ballistic missiles before abandoning its nuclear weapons program and ratifying the NPT in 1995.

So the question comes, is Iran willing to change its past behavior and abandon its pursuit of a nuclear weapon? It may well be, and it is the job of diplomacy to push for that change.

I believe there are positive signs that Iran is interested in such a change, and I would like to explain my reasons.

The election of Hassan Rouhani was a surprise to many long-time observers of Iran because he campaigned in support of repairing Iran's relationship with the West.

Since his inauguration he has tried to do exactly that. For the first time since the Iranian revolution, the leaders of our countries have been in direct communication with each other. Where once direct contact even between senior officials was rare, now Secretary of State John Kerry and Under Secretary of State Wendy Sherman are in near constant contact with their Iranian counterparts. Those conversations produced the historic Geneva agreement which goes into effect in 6 days, on January 20.

Candidate Rouhani also promised to increase nuclear transparency, and he has delivered on that as well. Even before the Geneva interim agreement was reached, Iran slowed uranium enrichment and construction for the Arak heavy water reactor--maybe for technical reasons, maybe not, but it slowed. Iran has also reengaged with the IAEA to resolve questions surrounding its nuclear activities.

So what has been achieved in Geneva? The interim 6-month agreement reached between the P5+1 countries, the United States, China, Russia, the UK, France, Germany, freezes Iran's nuclear program in place while a comprehensive agreement is negotiated in the next 6 months. This agreement caps Iran's stockpile of enriched uranium at 5 percent. It stops the production of 20 percent enriched uranium. It requires the neutralization of Iran's stockpile of 20 percent uranium. It prevents Iran from installing additional centrifuges or operating its most advanced centrifuges. It prohibits it from stockpiling excess centrifuges. It halts all significant work at the Arak heavy water reactor and prevents Iran from constructing a plutonium reprocessing facility.

Most importantly, the interim agreement imposes the most intrusive international inspection regime ever. International inspectors will independently verify whether Iran is complying with the interim agreement. For the first time, the International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors will have uninterrupted access to Iran's enrichment facilities at Natanz and Fordow, centrifuge production plants, centrifuge assembly facilities, and Iran's uranium mines and mills. Finally, Iran is required to declare all planned new nuclear facilities.

In exchange, the P5+1 negotiators offered sanctions relief limited to $7 billion, an aspect of the interim agreement that has been criticized and I wish to talk about it for a moment.

Here are the facts on that sanctions relief which, in my view, does not materially alter the biting sanctions which have devastated Iran's economy. The vast majority of sanctions relief comes in the form of Iranian repatriation of $4.2 billion of its own money. Iran will continue to lose $4 billion to $5 billion a month in lost oil revenue from existing sanctions. Iran will not have access to about $100 billion of its own reserves trapped by sanctions abroad.

For perspective, the total estimated sanctions relief is valued at approximately only 1 percent of the Iranian economy, hardly a significant amount.

I wish to take a moment to detail what is not in the interim agreement.

First, it does not grant Iran a right to enrich. The United States does not recognize such a right for the five nonnuclear weapons states that currently have enrichment programs, and we will make no exception for Iran. But Iran does have a right to peaceful nuclear energy if it fully abides by the terms of its safeguards agreement under the NPT.

Secondly, the agreement does not in any way unravel our core oil and financial sanctions. Others have argued the suspension of any sanctions against Iran will unravel the entire sanctions regime, and that is false. The Obama administration has taken action to ensure that does not happen.

Two days after the interim agreement was reached, the United States settled with a Swiss Oil Services Company over sanctions violations. The settlement was more than $250 million. It was the largest against a foreign firm outside of the banking industry.

On December 12, the administration announced the expansion of Iranian entities subject to sanctions. These entities either helped Tehran evade sanctions or provided support to Iran's nuclear program.

On January 7 of this year, the administration halted the transfer of two Boeing airplane engines from Turkey to Iran. Through these actions, the Obama administration has made it abundantly clear that the United States will continue to enforce our existing sanctions against Iran.

Third, the agreement does not codify the violation of U.N. security resolutions. Critics have attacked the interim agreement for its failure to completely halt all of Iran's nuclear enrichment by noting that six U.N. Security Council Resolutions have called on Tehran to do so and it has not done so.

The purpose of the U.N. Resolutions was not to suspend nuclear enrichment indefinitely. Instead, these resolutions were designed to freeze Iran's nuclear activities until the IAEA could determine whether Iran's activities were for exclusively peaceful purposes.

This is an important point. The interim agreement achieves what the six U.N. Security Council Resolutions could not. It freezes Iran's nuclear progress while a comprehensive, verifiable agreement is being negotiated over the next 6 months.

The interim agreement was only possible because a strong international sanctions regime has worked to convince rank-and-file Iranians, candidly, that enough is enough.

According to the State Department, as a result of the sanctions, Iran's crude oil exports have plummeted from approximately 2.5 million barrels per day in 2011 to around 1 million barrels per day in recent months. This decline

alone costs Iran $3 billion to $5 billion per month in lost revenue.

In total, 23 nations who import Iranian oil have eliminated or significantly reduced purchases from Iran. In fact, Iran currently has only six customers for its oil: China, India, Turkey, South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan.

In the last year, Iran's gross domestic product shrunk by 5.8 percent. Its GDP shrunk in 1 year by 5.8 percent, while inflation is estimated to be 50 percent or more.

Prices for food and consumer goods are doubling and tripling on an annual basis, and estimates put unemployment as high as 35 percent while underemployment is pervasive.

This is why Iran says enough is enough. The sanctions are biting and they are biting deeply, and there is no need to put additional sanctions on the table at this time.

This body may soon consider the Nuclear Weapon Free Iran Act; that is, a bill to do exactly the opposite, to impose additional sanctions against Iran, do it now, and hold it in abeyance.

Before casting a vote, Senators should ask themselves what would happen if the bill passes and a promised veto by the President is not sustained. I would like to give my view.

I sincerely believe the P5+1 negotiations with Iran would end and, with it, the best opportunity in more than 30 years to make a major change in Iranian behavior--a change that could not only open all kinds of economic opportunities for the Iranian people, but help change the course of a nation. Its destiny in fact could be changed.

Passing additional sanctions now would only play into the hands of those in Iran who are most eager to see diplomacy fail. Iranian conservatives, hardliners, will attack President Rouhani and Foreign Minister Zarif for seeking a nuclear compromise.

They will argue that Iran exchanged a freeze of its nuclear program for additional and harsh punitive sanctions. Think about that. They will say that Iran did not achieve anything with this agreement. All we got were more sanctions.

Second, if the United States cannot honor an interim agreement negotiated in Geneva by Russia, China, France, Germany, the UK and ourselves--we are not alone in this--it will never lift sanctions after a final agreement is reached.

Above all, they will argue that the United States is not interested in nuclear diplomacy--we are interested in regime change.

The bottom line: If this body passes S. 1881, diplomatic negotiations will collapse, and there will be no final agreement.

Some might want that result, but I do not.

Iran's nuclear program would once again be unrestrained, and the only remaining option to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon would be military action. I do not want that unless it is absolutely necessary.

To date, the prospect of just considering this bill has prompted Iranian legislators to consider retaliation. There is talk that the legislative branch, called the Majles, may move to increase nuclear enrichment far beyond the 5-percent limit in the interim agreement and much closer to, if not achieving, weapons-grade uranium.

So the authors of additional sanctions in this body and Iranian hardliners in the other body would actually combine to blow up the diplomatic effort of 6 major powers.

The bill's sponsors have argued that sanctions would strengthen the United State's hand in negotiations. They argue that sanctions brought Iran to the negotiating table in the first place. They contend that additional sanctions would force Iran to abandon its nuclear program.

I could not disagree more.

Let me give the views of a few other people who are knowledgeable in the arena: Dr. Paul Pillar, a former U.S. intelligence official and current professor at Georgetown University recently argued:

It is the prospect of having U.S.-led sanctions removed

that will convince Iran to accept severe restrictions on its

nuclear program. Threatening Iran with additional sanctions

now--after it has agreed to the interim agreement and an

interim agreement is about to go into effect--will not

convince Tehran to complete a final agreement.

I couldn't agree more.

If this bill would help our negotiators, as its authors contend, they would say so.

I believe this bill is an egregious imposition on the Executive's authority to conduct foreign affairs. In fact, our Secretary of State has formally asked this Congress to give our negotiators and our experts the time and space to do their jobs, including no new sanctions.

What does this body say, sitting here? We are not going to do that? This is a Secretary of State who is of this body, Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, who has been absolutely prodigious in his efforts to get this interim agreement, has gotten it, and we are going to run the risk that it is going to break apart during the next 6 months when a final agreement might well be negotiated?

If the Senate imposes its will, if we override the President's veto, and it blows up this very fragile process, some would say: Too bad, what a tragedy.

We know what the Iranian reaction will be. The Iranian Foreign Minister Zarif, who I happen to have known for a substantial period of time, has clearly stated what the result will be in five words, and it is this: ``The entire deal is dead.''

That is his direct quote. Why wouldn't we take him at his word? So far he has been good to his word.

The ambassador of our staunchest ally, the UK, warned this body not to pass more sanctions. Sir Peter Westmacott recently wrote:

Further sanctions now would only hurt negotiations and risk

eroding international support for the sanctions that have

brought us this far. The time for additional measures will

come if Iran reneges on the deal or negotiations fail. Now is

not that time.

I deeply believe that a vote for this legislation will cause negotiations to collapse. The United States, not Iran, then becomes the party that risks fracturing the international coalition that has enabled our sanctions to succeed in the first place.

It says to the UK, China, Russia, France, and Germany that our country cannot be trusted to stand behind our diplomatic commitments. That is a very big statement.

Our allies will question whether their compliance with sanctions and the economic sacrifices they have made are for naught.

Should these negotiations fall apart, the choices are few and the most likely result, in my view, is the eventual and inevitable use of military force.

So I ask this body, Is that the choice we want to make? In 6 days the tentative agreement will go into place. We want to pass this? We don't even want to wait and see what happens?

We don't even want to wait and see what the IAEA finds when they are in there 24-7, 365 days a year?

I think what we ought to do is concentrate on Iranian compliance with the interim agreement.

On January 20, 2014, this agreement comes into effect, 6 days from now, and over the next 6 months the international community will be able to verify whether or not Iran is keeping its commitments to freeze its nuclear progress.

If Iran fails to abide by the terms of the interim agreement, or if a final agreement cannot be negotiated, Congress can immediately consider additional sanctions.

I deeply believe that additional sanctions should only be considered once our diplomatic track has been given the opportunity to forge a final, comprehensive, and binding agreement.

This is what is most distressing. If we had not reached an agreement, with the cooperation and leadership of the big powers of this world, that would be one thing. The fact is we have reached agreement and that action is just about to take place, and we are going to jaundice it, we are going to hurt it, and we are likely to collapse it by passing additional sanctions now which a President of the United States will veto with the aim of overriding that veto.

How does that make any kind of common sense? It defies logic, it threatens instant reverse, and it ends what has been unprecedented diplomacy. Do we want to take that on our shoulders? Candidly, in my view, it is a march toward war.

As Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I know the challenges Iran poses to U.S. interests around the world.

I see the majority leader is on the floor.

Would the majority leader like me to cease for a moment?

As I said, as Chairman of the Intelligence Committee, I know the challenges Iran poses to the U.S. interests around the world. Its patronage of the terrorist group Hezbollah, its support for Syria's Bashar Assad through the Revolutionary Guard Corps are two of the most troubling.

I would hope that as a followthrough of diplomacy we might be able to quell some of these activities.

Let me acknowledge Israel's real, well-founded concerns that a nuclear-armed Iran would threaten its very existence. I don't disagree with that. I agree with it, but they are not there yet.

While I recognize and share Israel's concern, we cannot let Israel determine when and where the United States goes to war. By stating that the United States should provide military support to Israel in a formal resolution should it attack Iran, I fear that is how this bill is going to be interpreted.

Let me conclude. The interim agreement with Iran is strong, it is tough, and it is realistic. It represents the first significant opportunity to change a three-decade course in Iran and an opening to improve one of our most poisonous bilateral relationships. It could open the door to a new future which not only considers Israel's national security, but protects our own.

To preserve diplomacy, I strongly oppose the Nuclear Weapon Free Iran Act.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Saxby Chambliss to honor and thank one of the Senate's longest-serving and most widely-respected professional staff members--Kathleen McGhee. Kathleen is retiring this week after 33 years of continual service to the Select Committee on Intelligence.

As all Senators know, much of the work of the Senate is done quietly and behind the scenes, by staff whose names are not in the papers and who are not in public service for the recognition. This is especially true for the work of the Intelligence Committee, which operates behind closed doors and--when things are working right--without public attention. For 33 years, Kathleen McGhee was the person who made sure that the committee operated professionally by ensuring that our hearings ran smoothly, reports were written, letters sent and received, transcripts maintained, and budgets were met, all in a timely fashion.

The only thing she has not been able to overcome is the mice.

Kathleen came to the committee shortly after graduating from the University of Maryland, joining the committee staff on April 7, 1980, in order to assist the committee's arms control expert. She subsequently provided administrative support to the committee's budget director, minority counsel, and minority staff director. In 1987, Chairman David L. Boren appointed Kathleen as the chief clerk of the Intelligence Committee, a position she has held ever since.

In her time here, she has been present when some of our Nation's most important national security issues were considered and debated--from espionage during the Cold War to the response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and many more. In the thousands of hearings, briefings, and markups she has run, Kathleen has truly seen and heard it all.

Kathleen has served as clerk, and mostly as chief clerk, for 11 committee chairmen: Birch Bayh, Barry Goldwater, Dave Durenberger, David Boren, Dennis DeConcini, Arlen Specter, Richard Shelby, Bob Graham, Pat Roberts, Jay Rockefeller, and for me. Owing to the nature of the committee and its rules, and to her even-handed, nonpartisan approach, she has also served many Vice Chairmen equally well during her tenure: Patrick Moynihan, Pat Leahy, Bill Cohen, Frank Murkowski, John Warner, Bob Kerrey, Richard Bryan, Kit Bond, and now Saxby Chambliss, to name a few. Few people in the U.S. Congress can say that they have worked for so many Senators--85 Senators in all--and as professionally.

As importantly, in her time here, and especially as the committee's chief clerk for more than two decades, Kathleen has worked with more than 300 staffers who have uniformly appreciated and respected her professionalism and collegiality. Kathleen has managed the administrative staff and functions of the committee, and coordinated with other Senate offices on matters ranging from the rules to the architecture. She has walked dozens of staff directors through the preparation and execution of the committee's budget and has been hailed repeatedly as the committee's ``institutional memory.''

As the chief clerk, Kathleen has been responsible for showing new staffers the ropes and making sure they were able to transition smoothly into their new roles on the committee staff. Especially for people used to the bureaucratic difficulties in the executive branch, her ability to pave the way has been nearly miraculous.

Sadly, but understandably, it is now the time for her own transition--although true to her form, Kathleen agreed to continue her service longer than anticipated in order to make sure that the hand-off to her successor would go smoothly.

Now, we are pleased to take the opportunity on behalf of the Senate to thank Kathleen McGhee for her tremendous service to the Select Committee on Intelligence, the Senate, and

the Nation. We wish her all the very best as she enjoys a well-earned retirement to her home in Falls Church, VA, and on her beloved shores of Bethany Beach, DE, with her husband Mike and children, Luke and Molly.

Madam President, today I wish to express my support for Vice Chairman Janet Yellen, nominee for Chairman of the Federal Reserve.

Dr. Yellen has dedicated her life to understanding the complex and evolving field of economics, and her background makes her an ideal candidate to replace Chairman Ben Bernanke and continue the Fed's efforts to boost economic growth, increase the pace of job creation, and ulitimately reduce the crushing unemployment that has been a drag on our recovery.

Dr. Yellen's academic credentials and experience in economics are first rate.

She graduated suma cum laude from Brown University in 1967 and later earned a doctorate in economics from Yale University in 1971.

She began her teaching career as an assistant professor at Harvard University, where she taught from 1971 to 1976.

In 1977 and 1978 she began her public service as an economist at the Federal Reserve Board of Governors.

In 1980, Dr. Yellen headed west to my home State of California to become an assistant professor at the University of California, Berkeley, She rose to professor emeritus of business and economics and was twice awarded teacher of the year at Berkeley's distinguished Haas School of Business.

During her time at Berkeley and elsewhere, Dr. Yellen published numerous research works, including the well-regarded ``Waiting for Work,'' a comprehensive study of unemployment she completed with her husband, the economist George Akerlof.

Dr. Yellen's research has been published in the Journal of Economics, Business Economics, and the Brookings Papers on Economic Policy, amongst others.

Her research has primarily focused on unemployment, monetary policy, and international trade--a perspective that will be vitally important as the Fed works to solve the complex issues facing the global economy.

In 1997, she left the Federal Reserve to chair the Council of Economic Advisers during the Clinton administration.

Before her appointment to Vice Chairman of the Fed she led the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, keeping watch over financial conditions in the region as well as providing counsel on the direction of monetary policy.

In 2010, she was appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate to be Vice Chairman of the Federal Reserve where she has ably served. She has been intimately involved with the Fed's interest rate policy and its continuation of the unprecedented program of quantitative easing.

I believe that this extensive experience working on monetary policy issues at the Federal Reserve will make for a seamless transition to Chairman and provide stability to financial markets.

Recently, a lot of attention is being paid to the issue of growing income inequality in our country.

Over the last few decades, middle-class incomes have stagnated while incomes for high earners have enjoyed a stratospheric rise. Increasingly, the owners of capital are reaping a greater and greater share of the profits, while hard working Americans struggle to keep up.

If this trend continues, it will make for a more volatile economy and put middle and lower income families in increasing financial strain.

Most importantly, if income inequality is really a product of inequality of opportunity, then the United States will no longer deliver on its most fundamental promise, one that serves as the foundation for our social contract.

To me, that outcome is unacceptable, and our leading economic thinkers should be working night and day to ensure that every hard- working American has the opportunity to be successful in this country.

The most direct way to address income inequality is to increase the rate of job creation in the United States. We have made significant progress in the recovery from the great recession, but the recovery has not been robust enough to translate into a robust labor market which increases wages for all Americans.

Dr. Yellen has demonstrated a consistent ability to balance the Fed's mission of increasing employment and maintaining stable inflation. Her academic work suggests that she is keenly aware of the devastating impact of persistently high unemployment, both for families and the economy writ large.

With her keen understanding of economics and a rigorous analytical process and a distinguished career in academia, Dr. Yellen is the right person to lead the Fed at this time.

And let me just say, a woman as Chairman of the Federal Reserve--a talented and extraordinarily well qualified woman--is a positive thing.

I enthusiastically support her nomination, and I encourage my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Inyo National Forest Land Exchange Act.

This legislation will facilitate a land exchange between the operators of the Mammoth Mountain Ski Area in the Eastern Sierra Nevada region of California and the Inyo National Forest. Enactment of this bill will allow the ski resort to redevelop the parcel of land it currently leases from Forest Service, while providing the Forest Service with a combination of high resource value lands and a cash payment equal to the value of the exchanged land.

Since the Mammoth Mountain Ski Area, LLC, MMSA, began operations in 1953, Mammoth Mountain has grown to be one of the most popular ski areas in the United States, attracting up to two million visitors a year.

However, the Main Lodge area, which is located on approximately 21 acres of land leased by MMSA, has become outdated and inadequate to meet visitor needs. The Main Lodge building and Mammoth Mountain Inn are now more than 50 years old and require significant improvements and upgrades. Insufficient employee housing, parking and guest amenities must be corrected and skier staging and lift line queuing areas must be modernized. In order to make the necessary long-term investments, resort operators are seeking fee title to the land and have been working with the Inyo National Forest since 1998 to complete a land exchange.

Equal-value land exchanges involving Forest Service land are permitted under the Exchange Act. However, the typical land exchange procedures do not conform well to this particular exchange due to the complexity, size and scarcity of large, high resource value parcels in the Inyo National Forest. Consequently, this legislation would authorize a one-time exception to the Exchange Act to accomplish the proposed land exchange. Specifically, the bill would require the Secretary of Agriculture to acquire two parcels of private land outside, totaling approximately 1,500 acres, the boundary the Inyo National Forest in exchange for the conveyance of the 21 acre parcel within the forest currently leased to MMSA; accept a cash equalization payment in excess of the 25 percent value of the federal lands to fully compensate the Forest Service for the exchanged lands; and use the cash payment to acquire land or interests in land for additions to the National Forest System as such lands become available.

This bill will provide both economic and environmental benefits. The new construction that this bill will help facilitate will not only create new construction jobs during renovations, but will also allow the Ski Area to expand and improve its operations, creating more sustainable and permanent jobs. Additionally, the land MMSA will be transferring to the Forest Service includes high resource value lands that have long been desired for protection by local environmentalists and the Forest Service. This includes lands within the view shed of the Mono Basin

National Scenic Area, the first designated National Scenic Area and a place of incredible natural beauty.

This legislation has bipartisan support. The bill was first introduced by Rep. Buck McKeon in June 2011 and passed the House in April 2012 by a vote of 376--2. It was reintroduced by Rep. Paul Cook earlier this year with the support of both Democratic and Republican cosponsors and passed the House a second time on December 3, 2013.

Local government and community organizations also support this legislation, including the Mono County Board of Supervisors, the Mammoth Lakes Town Council, the Mammoth Lakes Chamber of Commerce, Mammoth Lakes Tourism, the Mono Lake Committee, and the Eastern Sierra Land Trust.

This trade has long been supported by noted environmentalists, including the late Andrea Mead Lawrence, after whom Congress earlier this year named a mountain in the nearby Sierra Nevada.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Enactment of this bill will ensure the long term success of one of the Nation's top ski resorts and benefit the local and regional economy, while allowing the Forest Service to acquire high resource value lands that will be enjoyed by Americans for generations to come.

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

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Protecting Lands Against Narcotics Trafficking or PLANT Act of 2013 with my colleague and friend, Senator Orrin Hatch.

This bill, which is similar to House legislation introduced by Representative Jared Huffman, will help curb the severe environmental damage caused by illegal marijuana grows. I thank my friend and fellow Californian, Representative Huffman, for his leadership on this issue.

Across our Nation, but especially in California, drug traffickers cultivate marijuana with zero regard for the environmental destruction it causes. Motivated solely by profits, these criminals illegally divert streams, poison wildlife, pollute watersheds and destroy the natural heritage that we have worked so hard to protect.

Recognizing the destructive ecological impact of illegal marijuana cultivation, this legislation directs the United States Sentencing Commission to review and amend Federal sentencing guidelines to account for the environmental crimes drug traffickers commit on public and trespassed lands.

Specifically, the bill instructs the Sentencing Commission to put in place sentencing guidelines that increase penalties for individuals who engage in any of the following activities while cultivating illegal drugs on Federal lands or while trespassing on another person's property:

Use of poisons or hazardous chemicals, such as pesticides and rodenticides; the diversion, redirection, obstruction, draining or impoundment of local aquifers, rivers or bodies of water; or significant removal of vegetation or clear cutting of timber.

In addition to environmental concerns, this legislation addresses the safety of our public lands. It directs the Sentencing Commission to provide guidelines increasing penalties on drug traffickers who use or possess a firearm while producing illegal drugs on federal or trespassed lands.

Last year alone, over 900,000 marijuana plants were eradicated at 471 sites on National Forest Lands. Sadly, this represents only a fraction of the total marijuana illegally grown in our National Parks, Forests and other public lands. In California, Operation Pristine, a recent effort to combat the environmental damage caused by illegal marijuana production, resulted in the removal of over 8,700 tons of trash including pesticides, batteries, fertilizers and propane tanks from environmentally sensitive lands.

Drug traffickers often use illegal pesticides smuggled in from Mexico, such as carbofuran, which contaminate California's water resources. They also use pesticides and rodenticides in an illegal manner, often on protected lands. These poisons are having a devastating impact on California's wildlife, including the Pacific Fisher, a member of the Weasel family being considered for listing as an endangered species.

Taxpayers are also being hit hard by the millions of dollars needed to clean up the environmental damage caused by illegal marijuana grows. Estimates put the cost of reclaiming land damaged by illicit marijuana growth at approximately $15,000 per acre. As you might expect, drug traffickers are not setting aside funds for this work, and the cost is passed on to the American people.

Illicit marijuana cultivation also damages the economy and hurts legitimate businesses. Timber companies, farmers and ranchers have had their operations disrupted by criminals growing marijuana illegally. Marijuana growers on agricultural lands, particularly in the Central Valley, divert thousands of gallons of scarce water from legitimate agriculture. In 2013 alone, California has identified over 1,800 grow sites in the Central Valley, including 406 in Tulare County and 537 in Fresno as of November.

As Chairman of the Senate Caucus on International Narcotics Control and also as a Senator who has worked to safeguard our country's natural resources, I believe that we cannot allow drug traffickers to destroy our public lands, pollute our waters and kill our wildlife with impunity. It is time that sentencing guidelines take into account the environmental damage that drug traffickers all too often cause. This legislation, directing the Sentencing Commission to review and amend its guidelines, will do just that.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Inyo National Forest Land Exchange Act.

This legislation will facilitate a land exchange between the operators of the Mammoth Mountain Ski Area in the Eastern Sierra Nevada region of California and the Inyo National Forest. Enactment of this bill will allow the ski resort to redevelop the parcel of land it currently leases from Forest Service, while providing the Forest Service with a combination of high resource value lands and a cash payment equal to the value of the exchanged land.

Since the Mammoth Mountain Ski Area, LLC, MMSA, began operations in 1953, Mammoth Mountain has grown to be one of the most popular ski areas in the United States, attracting up to two million visitors a year.

However, the Main Lodge area, which is located on approximately 21 acres of land leased by MMSA, has become outdated and inadequate to meet visitor needs. The Main Lodge building and Mammoth Mountain Inn are now more than 50 years old and require significant improvements and upgrades. Insufficient employee housing, parking and guest amenities must be corrected and skier staging and lift line queuing areas must be modernized. In order to make the necessary long-term investments, resort operators are seeking fee title to the land and have been working with the Inyo National Forest since 1998 to complete a land exchange.

Equal-value land exchanges involving Forest Service land are permitted under the Exchange Act. However, the typical land exchange procedures do not conform well to this particular exchange due to the complexity, size and scarcity of large, high resource value parcels in the Inyo National Forest. Consequently, this legislation would authorize a one-time exception to the Exchange Act to accomplish the proposed land exchange. Specifically, the bill would require the Secretary of Agriculture to acquire two parcels of private land outside, totaling approximately 1,500 acres, the boundary the Inyo National Forest in exchange for the conveyance of the 21 acre parcel within the forest currently leased to MMSA; accept a cash equalization payment in excess of the 25 percent value of the federal lands to fully compensate the Forest Service for the exchanged lands; and use the cash payment to acquire land or interests in land for additions to the National Forest System as such lands become available.

This bill will provide both economic and environmental benefits. The new construction that this bill will help facilitate will not only create new construction jobs during renovations, but will also allow the Ski Area to expand and improve its operations, creating more sustainable and permanent jobs. Additionally, the land MMSA will be transferring to the Forest Service includes high resource value lands that have long been desired for protection by local environmentalists and the Forest Service. This includes lands within the view shed of the Mono Basin

National Scenic Area, the first designated National Scenic Area and a place of incredible natural beauty.

This legislation has bipartisan support. The bill was first introduced by Rep. Buck McKeon in June 2011 and passed the House in April 2012 by a vote of 376--2. It was reintroduced by Rep. Paul Cook earlier this year with the support of both Democratic and Republican cosponsors and passed the House a second time on December 3, 2013.

Local government and community organizations also support this legislation, including the Mono County Board of Supervisors, the Mammoth Lakes Town Council, the Mammoth Lakes Chamber of Commerce, Mammoth Lakes Tourism, the Mono Lake Committee, and the Eastern Sierra Land Trust.

This trade has long been supported by noted environmentalists, including the late Andrea Mead Lawrence, after whom Congress earlier this year named a mountain in the nearby Sierra Nevada.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Enactment of this bill will ensure the long term success of one of the Nation's top ski resorts and benefit the local and regional economy, while allowing the Forest Service to acquire high resource value lands that will be enjoyed by Americans for generations to come.

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

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Protecting Lands Against Narcotics Trafficking or PLANT Act of 2013 with my colleague and friend, Senator Orrin Hatch.

This bill, which is similar to House legislation introduced by Representative Jared Huffman, will help curb the severe environmental damage caused by illegal marijuana grows. I thank my friend and fellow Californian, Representative Huffman, for his leadership on this issue.

Across our Nation, but especially in California, drug traffickers cultivate marijuana with zero regard for the environmental destruction it causes. Motivated solely by profits, these criminals illegally divert streams, poison wildlife, pollute watersheds and destroy the natural heritage that we have worked so hard to protect.

Recognizing the destructive ecological impact of illegal marijuana cultivation, this legislation directs the United States Sentencing Commission to review and amend Federal sentencing guidelines to account for the environmental crimes drug traffickers commit on public and trespassed lands.

Specifically, the bill instructs the Sentencing Commission to put in place sentencing guidelines that increase penalties for individuals who engage in any of the following activities while cultivating illegal drugs on Federal lands or while trespassing on another person's property:

Use of poisons or hazardous chemicals, such as pesticides and rodenticides; the diversion, redirection, obstruction, draining or impoundment of local aquifers, rivers or bodies of water; or significant removal of vegetation or clear cutting of timber.

In addition to environmental concerns, this legislation addresses the safety of our public lands. It directs the Sentencing Commission to provide guidelines increasing penalties on drug traffickers who use or possess a firearm while producing illegal drugs on federal or trespassed lands.

Last year alone, over 900,000 marijuana plants were eradicated at 471 sites on National Forest Lands. Sadly, this represents only a fraction of the total marijuana illegally grown in our National Parks, Forests and other public lands. In California, Operation Pristine, a recent effort to combat the environmental damage caused by illegal marijuana production, resulted in the removal of over 8,700 tons of trash including pesticides, batteries, fertilizers and propane tanks from environmentally sensitive lands.

Drug traffickers often use illegal pesticides smuggled in from Mexico, such as carbofuran, which contaminate California's water resources. They also use pesticides and rodenticides in an illegal manner, often on protected lands. These poisons are having a devastating impact on California's wildlife, including the Pacific Fisher, a member of the Weasel family being considered for listing as an endangered species.

Taxpayers are also being hit hard by the millions of dollars needed to clean up the environmental damage caused by illegal marijuana grows. Estimates put the cost of reclaiming land damaged by illicit marijuana growth at approximately $15,000 per acre. As you might expect, drug traffickers are not setting aside funds for this work, and the cost is passed on to the American people.

Illicit marijuana cultivation also damages the economy and hurts legitimate businesses. Timber companies, farmers and ranchers have had their operations disrupted by criminals growing marijuana illegally. Marijuana growers on agricultural lands, particularly in the Central Valley, divert thousands of gallons of scarce water from legitimate agriculture. In 2013 alone, California has identified over 1,800 grow sites in the Central Valley, including 406 in Tulare County and 537 in Fresno as of November.

As Chairman of the Senate Caucus on International Narcotics Control and also as a Senator who has worked to safeguard our country's natural resources, I believe that we cannot allow drug traffickers to destroy our public lands, pollute our waters and kill our wildlife with impunity. It is time that sentencing guidelines take into account the environmental damage that drug traffickers all too often cause. This legislation, directing the Sentencing Commission to review and amend its guidelines, will do just that.

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

Mr. President, I rise to introduce The Corn Ethanol Mandate Elimination Act of 2013, a bill cosponsored by my distinguished colleagues: Senators Tom Coburn, Kay Hagan, Susan Collins, Patrick Toomey, Jeff Flake, Bob Corker, Richard Burr, James Risch, and Joe Manchin.

This legislation would eliminate the Federal corn ethanol mandate from the Renewable Fuel Standard, RFS, while leaving the requirement that oil companies purchase and use low-carbon ``advanced biofuel'' in place.

Let me briefly explain why this legislation is necessary.

The Renewable Fuel Standard, a statute enacted in 2007, requires oil companies to use 16.55 billion gallons of renewable fuel in 2013. This annual requirement increases to 36 billion gallons in 2022.

Every year, the law directs that an increasing portion of this mandate be met using low-carbon ``advanced biofuel'' that is not derived from corn starch and lowers lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions by at least 50 percent. I strongly support this provision to lower the carbon emissions from our fuel supply.

However, 14.4 billion gallons in 2014, and 15 billion gallons each year after, of the RFS mandate established in statute is met using corn ethanol, which amounts to a corn ethanol mandate.

There are two major problems with continuing to mandate the consumption of more and more corn ethanol in the United States each year.

First and foremost, the policy has led us to divert 44 percent of the U.S. corn crop from food to fuel, about twice the rate in 2006.

As the Associated Press laid out in a recent detailed investigation, the use of corn for ethanol is artificially pushing up food and feed prices while damaging the environment. The investigation found conservation lands are disappearing.

Before Congress enacted the corn ethanol mandate, the U.S. Department of Agriculture Conservation Reserve Program grew every year for nearly a decade. But in the first year after the corn ethanol mandate, more than 2 million acres were removed. Since Obama took office, 5 million more acres have been repurposed.

The AP also found that farmers have broken ground on virgin land, which it described as ``the untouched terrain that represents, from an environmental standpoint, the country's most important asset.''

Using government satellite data, the AP estimates that 1.2 million acres of virgin land in Nebraska and the Dakotas alone have been converted to fields of corn and soybeans since 2006.

Since 2005, the AP calculates that corn farmers increased their use of nitrogen fertilizer by more than two billion pounds.

The nitrates from this fertilizer wash into our rivers and flow to the Gulf of Mexico, where they feed algae. When the algae die, the decomposition consumes oxygen, leaving behind a ``dead zone.''

This year, the AP reports the dead zone covered 5,800 square miles of sea floor, about the size of Connecticut.

Using more and more corn for ethanol, in drought years as well as years with bumper crops, has had economic consequences as well as environmental effects.

Higher feed prices have cost our beef, poultry, restaurant, and dairy industries dearly.

According to recent testimony in the House of Representatives, from October 2006 to July 2013, poultry and egg producers have had to bear the burden of higher feed costs totaling over $50 billion.

Joel Brandenberger, the President of the National Turkey Federation, estimates that the RFS cost the turkey industry $1.9 billion in increased feed expenses last year.

According to a recent Price-Waterhouse-Coopers study, the federal mandate on corn-based ethanol substantially raised prices and costs throughout the food supply chain. If the RFS mandate were left unchanged, it would increase chain restaurant industry costs by up to $3.2 billion a year.

But the damage has probably been greatest in California, where dairymen are drowning under a combination of low milk prices and high feed costs.

The milk producers' group Western United Dairymen reports that more than 400 dairies have gone out of business in the past 5 years, including 105 in the past year alone.

``California's remaining 1,500 dairies are fighting for survival,'' the group said in a recent statement.

The bottom line is increased feed prices associated with corn ethanol have bent this industry to its breaking point.

But the corn ethanol mandate in the Renewable Fuel Standard also presents an additional problem.

As Corporate Average Fuel Economy, CAFE, Standards required by the Ten in Ten Fuel Economy Act drive down gasoline consumption, oil companies face a ``blend wall'' as the RFS mandate exceeds the limit at which ethanol can be blended into the fuel supply--determined to be 10 percent of total gasoline consumption.

This blend wall is about 13.4 billion gallons of ethanol--well below the 2014 corn ethanol statutory mandate of 14.4 billion gallons.

According to EPA: ``EPA does not currently foresee a scenario in which the market could consume enough ethanol . . . to meet the volumes . . . stated in the statute.'' This situation is likely to increase gasoline prices.

While EPA has proposed using a creative statutory interpretation to reduce the RFS volumes in 2014, unfortunately EPA's proposal would reduce the advanced biofuel side of the RFS mandate by more than 41 percent, while it proposes to reduce the corn ethanol portion of the mandate by only 10 percent.

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

This legislation would eliminate the corn ethanol mandate, but it's important to point out it would by no means eliminate the corn ethanol industry. Refiners will continue to blend com ethanol into the fuel supply in the absence of a mandate for two reasons.

First, ethanol is the preferred octane booster used to increase the efficiency of gasoline.

Second, the wholesale price of ethanol is currently 65 cents per gallon less than the wholesale price of unblended gasoline, meaning blenders lower their costs and increase profits when they add ethanol to gasoline.

The multi-billion dollar corn ethanol industry will compete directly with oil based on price without a mandate, and the economic benefits of mixing corn ethanol into gasoline would remain.

I am aware that the advanced biofuel industry is working to scale and commercialize their technologies, and their investors seek regulatory and economic certainty during this period.

I am also fundamentally committed to the vitally important public health 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. Senator Coburn and I jointly made this clear when we agreed to the following statement:

``We are opposed to a mandate on the use of corn ethanol and plan to introduce the Corn Ethanol Mandate Elimination Act to repeal this unwise policy. The bill's language will explicitly clarify that the legislation has no effect on the low-carbon advanced biofuel provisions in the Renewable Fuel Standard, and we are both committed to opposing any amendment to the bill that would broaden its scope to amend, revise or weaken the advanced biofuel provisions or other public health protections provided by the Clean Air Act.

If provisions threatening public health were successfully added to the Corn Ethanol Mandate Elimination Act, we would no longer support the bill.

I also understand that some in the advanced biofuel industry argue that legislative changes to the corn ethanol portion of the Renewable Fuel Standard could reduce certainty for their industry.

Respectfully, I disagree. The current law is not providing this industry with the certainty it needs.

While EPA has some flexibility under the RFS statute to adjust RFS mandated volumes, most of that flexibility rests in EPA's power to reduce the amount of ``advanced biofuel'' mandated under the RFS.

EPA's ability to reduce the corn ethanol mandate under current law and current circumstances is far from clear. Its proposal to reduce the corn ethanol mandate in its recently released draft rule for 2014 will be subject to aggressive legal challenge.

EPA's lack of discretion has led EPA to propose a rule drastically reducing volumes for advanced biofuels, including biodiesel, by 41 percent, while it proposes only a modest 10 percent reduction in corn ethanol volumes.

Unless The Corn Ethanol Mandate Elimination Act is enacted, EPA will likely carry forward its proposal to dramatically reduce ``advanced biofuel'' volumes in order to address the blend wall. We believe eliminating the corn ethanol mandate is a much more responsible alternative.

This legislation has strong support from the prepared food industry, dairy, beef, poultry, oil and gas, engine manufacturers, boaters, hunger relief organizations and environmental groups. I would like to list all the organizations that have expressed support for this bill:

ActionAid USA; American Bakers Association; American Frozen Food Institute; American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers; American Meat Institute; American Sportfishing Association; Americans for Prosperity; BoatU.S.; California Dairies, Inc.; California Dairy Campaign; California Poultry Federation; Clean Air Task Force; Competitive Enterprise Institute; Dairy Producers of New Mexico; Dairy Producers of Utah; Environmental Working Group; Freedom Action; Georgia Poultry Federation; Grocery Manufacturers Association; Idaho Dairymen's Association; Indiana State Poultry Association; International Snowmobile Manufacturers Association; Iowa Turkey Federation; Marine Retailers Association of the Americas; Michigan Allied Poultry Industries, Inc.; Milk Producers Council; Minnesota Turkey Growers Association; National Cattlemen's Beef Association; National Chicken Council; National Council of Chain Restaurants; National Marine Manufacturers Association; National Restaurant Association; National Taxpayers Union; National Turkey Federation; Nevada State Dairy Commission; North American Meat Association; North Carolina Poultry Federation; Northwest Dairy Association; Oregon Dairy Farmers Association; Oxfam; South Carolina Poultry Federation; South East Dairy Farmers Association; Southeast Milk Inc.; Specialty Equipment Market Association; Taxpayers for Common Sense; Texas Poultry Federation; The Poultry Federation; Virginia Poultry Federation; Washington State Dairy Federation; Western United Dairymen; and the Wisconsin Poultry & Egg Industries Association.

The Corn Ethanol Mandate Elimination Act of 2013 would fix both of the problems with the current Renewable Fuel Standard.

First, it would eliminate the unnecessary pressure on corn prices and corn production, allowing the multi-billion dollar corn ethanol industry to compete directly with oil based on price, not mandates.

Second, it reduces RFS mandated volumes below the blend wall.

The bill addresses both problems while maintaining the RFS provisions that encourage the development, deployment and growth of cellulosic ethanol, algae-based fuel, green diesel, and other low carbon advanced biofuels, maintaining a market for the innovative, nascent, domestic industry that this statute was designed to build up.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce the Earthquake Insurance Affordability Act.

This bill will help families and communities quickly recover after major earthquakes by encouraging local investment in mitigation and insurance coverage.

You see, in California, the State with the greatest exposure to earthquake damage, only about 1 in 10 homeowners has insurance to pay for earthquake damage. Other States, including Washington, Oregon, Alaska, Tennessee, Missouri and Arkansas, also have significant earthquake risks and low rates of earthquake insurance.

Insurance coverage rates are so low that many believe it has now become a national crisis.

Because when homes aren't structurally sound, and insurance is lacking, local earthquake recovery costs quickly become America's costs.

The math is simple: less insurance means more Federal spending after a disaster.

For example, the August 2011 Virginia earthquake was devastating to

homeowners in and around Spotsylvania County. Most of those homeowners did not have an insurance policy that covered earthquake damage.

Mr. Cantor, the House Majority Leader, summed it up: ``Obviously the problem is most people in Virginia don't have earthquake insurance. That is going to be a hardship. If there needs to be money from the Federal Government, we'll find the money.''

Congress did ultimately find that money. A Federal disaster declaration was made, and homeowners received more than $16 million to cover uninsured losses.

But with bigger disasters come bigger uninsured losses.

Consider the costs of Hurricanes Katrina and Sandy.

The GAO estimates that the federal government provided about $26 billion to homeowners who lacked adequate insurance in response to Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma.

Congress provided $16 billion housing recovery for Sandy victims.

The bottom line is this: Uninsured homeowners drive up federal disaster spending. So if we can find a way to convert uninsured homeowners into insured homeowners, we will lower federal disaster spending and save American taxpayers millions each year.

The Earthquake Insurance Affordability Act will do just that. It will make earthquake insurance more affordable and expand access to coverage. It will dedicate non-federal funding to earthquake loss- mitigation programs to make houses and communities more resilient.

At its core, this legislation would authorize a private-market debt- guarantee program. The U.S. Treasury would guarantee certain debt issued by eligible state earthquake insurance programs following a catastrophic earthquake.

The debt would be limited in amount, and pre-arranged, and the eligible State programs would be highly creditworthy.

By definition, this legislation is designed to promote the use of private capital to finance earthquake risk. So this means that private capital, not Congressional appropriations, will support rebuilding homes and restoring communities.

The Federal guarantee will assure that qualified insurance programs can sell debt at reasonable rates, even during difficult post-disaster market conditions.

By lowering interest rates, insurance programs can spend less on interest and reinsurance, and instead invest that money on rate reductions and mitigation.

Rate reduction is the key goal; because uninsured homeowners overwhelmingly attribute their lack of insurance to the high price of these policies.

The California Earthquake Authority, the largest earthquake-insurance provider in the state, estimates the Earthquake Insurance Affordability Act will allow them to lower premiums and direct millions of dollars into mitigating homes.

That means the bill will not only lower insurance rates, but thousands more homes would become more earthquake-resistant.

Every homeowner who benefits from this legislation is one less homeowner who will rely on Federal disaster benefits after a catastrophic earthquake--that's millions of taxpayer dollars saved.

I know some of my colleagues will be concerned about putting the full faith and credit of our Federal Government behind insurance programs that are working to pay off catastrophic damages. I shared these concerns; and that is why the bill mandates strict criteria for determining how and when an insurance program can access a Federal guarantee.

First, the program must be an independent, State-run program.

Second, the program must be not for profit. The benefits of a Federal guarantee must go to policyholders, not shareholders.

Third, and most importantly, only financially sound programs are eligible. Before any Federal guarantee is offered, the Treasury Department must carefully confirm, then certify, that the program can repay the debt it incurs.

What is more: as a condition getting approved by the Department, the program must cover all actual and expected costs of conducting these credit reviews and administering the program.

Because of these key features, initial estimates from Congressional Budget Office staff affirm that this legislation brings no budgetary impact.

An independent assessment by the RAND Corporation also found that a program such as this would likely save tens of millions of dollars during a major disaster.

The bill brings other benefits to the taxpayer as well. Under a new provision added to the bill this year, participating State insurance programs must dedicate 2 percent of their Federal guarantee toward mitigating vulnerable properties and providing earthquake-hazard education.

Again, these mitigation funds will bring real benefits to homeowners, without appropriating Federal funds.

According to the United States Geological Survey, there is a 99.7 percent chance that a magnitude 6.7 earthquake will strike California within the next 30 years.

Even more concerning--the USGS forecasts a 46 percent chance that a much more devastating magnitude 7.5 or higher earthquake will occur in California during the same period.

The question is what are we doing to prepare?

Will we stick with the status quo; a system where the Federal Government comes in after the fact and spends billions to try to clean up the mess but leaves the community just as vulnerable to the next disaster?

Or will we apply the lessons from disasters like the 1994 Northridge earthquake where we spent the equivalent of more than $10 billion, and transition to a system where homeowners are encouraged to share the financial burden by purchasing earthquake insurance and making their homes stronger?

In the current budget environment, the choice cannot be simpler. We cannot continue to spend billions on disaster relief when reliable, cheaper options are available.

With a few simple steps, the Earthquake Insurance Affordability will create an affordable mechanism to help our country prepare for, and recover more quickly from, the major earthquakes that we all know are just around the corner. I urge my colleagues to quickly adopt this critical legislation.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce The Corn Ethanol Mandate Elimination Act of 2013, a bill cosponsored by my distinguished colleagues: Senators Tom Coburn, Kay Hagan, Susan Collins, Patrick Toomey, Jeff Flake, Bob Corker, Richard Burr, James Risch, and Joe Manchin.

This legislation would eliminate the Federal corn ethanol mandate from the Renewable Fuel Standard, RFS, while leaving the requirement that oil companies purchase and use low-carbon ``advanced biofuel'' in place.

Let me briefly explain why this legislation is necessary.

The Renewable Fuel Standard, a statute enacted in 2007, requires oil companies to use 16.55 billion gallons of renewable fuel in 2013. This annual requirement increases to 36 billion gallons in 2022.

Every year, the law directs that an increasing portion of this mandate be met using low-carbon ``advanced biofuel'' that is not derived from corn starch and lowers lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions by at least 50 percent. I strongly support this provision to lower the carbon emissions from our fuel supply.

However, 14.4 billion gallons in 2014, and 15 billion gallons each year after, of the RFS mandate established in statute is met using corn ethanol, which amounts to a corn ethanol mandate.

There are two major problems with continuing to mandate the consumption of more and more corn ethanol in the United States each year.

First and foremost, the policy has led us to divert 44 percent of the U.S. corn crop from food to fuel, about twice the rate in 2006.

As the Associated Press laid out in a recent detailed investigation, the use of corn for ethanol is artificially pushing up food and feed prices while damaging the environment. The investigation found conservation lands are disappearing.

Before Congress enacted the corn ethanol mandate, the U.S. Department of Agriculture Conservation Reserve Program grew every year for nearly a decade. But in the first year after the corn ethanol mandate, more than 2 million acres were removed. Since Obama took office, 5 million more acres have been repurposed.

The AP also found that farmers have broken ground on virgin land, which it described as ``the untouched terrain that represents, from an environmental standpoint, the country's most important asset.''

Using government satellite data, the AP estimates that 1.2 million acres of virgin land in Nebraska and the Dakotas alone have been converted to fields of corn and soybeans since 2006.

Since 2005, the AP calculates that corn farmers increased their use of nitrogen fertilizer by more than two billion pounds.

The nitrates from this fertilizer wash into our rivers and flow to the Gulf of Mexico, where they feed algae. When the algae die, the decomposition consumes oxygen, leaving behind a ``dead zone.''

This year, the AP reports the dead zone covered 5,800 square miles of sea floor, about the size of Connecticut.

Using more and more corn for ethanol, in drought years as well as years with bumper crops, has had economic consequences as well as environmental effects.

Higher feed prices have cost our beef, poultry, restaurant, and dairy industries dearly.

According to recent testimony in the House of Representatives, from October 2006 to July 2013, poultry and egg producers have had to bear the burden of higher feed costs totaling over $50 billion.

Joel Brandenberger, the President of the National Turkey Federation, estimates that the RFS cost the turkey industry $1.9 billion in increased feed expenses last year.

According to a recent Price-Waterhouse-Coopers study, the federal mandate on corn-based ethanol substantially raised prices and costs throughout the food supply chain. If the RFS mandate were left unchanged, it would increase chain restaurant industry costs by up to $3.2 billion a year.

But the damage has probably been greatest in California, where dairymen are drowning under a combination of low milk prices and high feed costs.

The milk producers' group Western United Dairymen reports that more than 400 dairies have gone out of business in the past 5 years, including 105 in the past year alone.

``California's remaining 1,500 dairies are fighting for survival,'' the group said in a recent statement.

The bottom line is increased feed prices associated with corn ethanol have bent this industry to its breaking point.

But the corn ethanol mandate in the Renewable Fuel Standard also presents an additional problem.

As Corporate Average Fuel Economy, CAFE, Standards required by the Ten in Ten Fuel Economy Act drive down gasoline consumption, oil companies face a ``blend wall'' as the RFS mandate exceeds the limit at which ethanol can be blended into the fuel supply--determined to be 10 percent of total gasoline consumption.

This blend wall is about 13.4 billion gallons of ethanol--well below the 2014 corn ethanol statutory mandate of 14.4 billion gallons.

According to EPA: ``EPA does not currently foresee a scenario in which the market could consume enough ethanol . . . to meet the volumes . . . stated in the statute.'' This situation is likely to increase gasoline prices.

While EPA has proposed using a creative statutory interpretation to reduce the RFS volumes in 2014, unfortunately EPA's proposal would reduce the advanced biofuel side of the RFS mandate by more than 41 percent, while it proposes to reduce the corn ethanol portion of the mandate by only 10 percent.

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

This legislation would eliminate the corn ethanol mandate, but it's important to point out it would by no means eliminate the corn ethanol industry. Refiners will continue to blend com ethanol into the fuel supply in the absence of a mandate for two reasons.

First, ethanol is the preferred octane booster used to increase the efficiency of gasoline.

Second, the wholesale price of ethanol is currently 65 cents per gallon less than the wholesale price of unblended gasoline, meaning blenders lower their costs and increase profits when they add ethanol to gasoline.

The multi-billion dollar corn ethanol industry will compete directly with oil based on price without a mandate, and the economic benefits of mixing corn ethanol into gasoline would remain.

I am aware that the advanced biofuel industry is working to scale and commercialize their technologies, and their investors seek regulatory and economic certainty during this period.

I am also fundamentally committed to the vitally important public health 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. Senator Coburn and I jointly made this clear when we agreed to the following statement:

``We are opposed to a mandate on the use of corn ethanol and plan to introduce the Corn Ethanol Mandate Elimination Act to repeal this unwise policy. The bill's language will explicitly clarify that the legislation has no effect on the low-carbon advanced biofuel provisions in the Renewable Fuel Standard, and we are both committed to opposing any amendment to the bill that would broaden its scope to amend, revise or weaken the advanced biofuel provisions or other public health protections provided by the Clean Air Act.

If provisions threatening public health were successfully added to the Corn Ethanol Mandate Elimination Act, we would no longer support the bill.

I also understand that some in the advanced biofuel industry argue that legislative changes to the corn ethanol portion of the Renewable Fuel Standard could reduce certainty for their industry.

Respectfully, I disagree. The current law is not providing this industry with the certainty it needs.

While EPA has some flexibility under the RFS statute to adjust RFS mandated volumes, most of that flexibility rests in EPA's power to reduce the amount of ``advanced biofuel'' mandated under the RFS.

EPA's ability to reduce the corn ethanol mandate under current law and current circumstances is far from clear. Its proposal to reduce the corn ethanol mandate in its recently released draft rule for 2014 will be subject to aggressive legal challenge.

EPA's lack of discretion has led EPA to propose a rule drastically reducing volumes for advanced biofuels, including biodiesel, by 41 percent, while it proposes only a modest 10 percent reduction in corn ethanol volumes.

Unless The Corn Ethanol Mandate Elimination Act is enacted, EPA will likely carry forward its proposal to dramatically reduce ``advanced biofuel'' volumes in order to address the blend wall. We believe eliminating the corn ethanol mandate is a much more responsible alternative.

This legislation has strong support from the prepared food industry, dairy, beef, poultry, oil and gas, engine manufacturers, boaters, hunger relief organizations and environmental groups. I would like to list all the organizations that have expressed support for this bill:

ActionAid USA; American Bakers Association; American Frozen Food Institute; American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers; American Meat Institute; American Sportfishing Association; Americans for Prosperity; BoatU.S.; California Dairies, Inc.; California Dairy Campaign; California Poultry Federation; Clean Air Task Force; Competitive Enterprise Institute; Dairy Producers of New Mexico; Dairy Producers of Utah; Environmental Working Group; Freedom Action; Georgia Poultry Federation; Grocery Manufacturers Association; Idaho Dairymen's Association; Indiana State Poultry Association; International Snowmobile Manufacturers Association; Iowa Turkey Federation; Marine Retailers Association of the Americas; Michigan Allied Poultry Industries, Inc.; Milk Producers Council; Minnesota Turkey Growers Association; National Cattlemen's Beef Association; National Chicken Council; National Council of Chain Restaurants; National Marine Manufacturers Association; National Restaurant Association; National Taxpayers Union; National Turkey Federation; Nevada State Dairy Commission; North American Meat Association; North Carolina Poultry Federation; Northwest Dairy Association; Oregon Dairy Farmers Association; Oxfam; South Carolina Poultry Federation; South East Dairy Farmers Association; Southeast Milk Inc.; Specialty Equipment Market Association; Taxpayers for Common Sense; Texas Poultry Federation; The Poultry Federation; Virginia Poultry Federation; Washington State Dairy Federation; Western United Dairymen; and the Wisconsin Poultry & Egg Industries Association.

The Corn Ethanol Mandate Elimination Act of 2013 would fix both of the problems with the current Renewable Fuel Standard.

First, it would eliminate the unnecessary pressure on corn prices and corn production, allowing the multi-billion dollar corn ethanol industry to compete directly with oil based on price, not mandates.

Second, it reduces RFS mandated volumes below the blend wall.

The bill addresses both problems while maintaining the RFS provisions that encourage the development, deployment and growth of cellulosic ethanol, algae-based fuel, green diesel, and other low carbon advanced biofuels, maintaining a market for the innovative, nascent, domestic industry that this statute was designed to build up.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce the Earthquake Insurance Affordability Act.

This bill will help families and communities quickly recover after major earthquakes by encouraging local investment in mitigation and insurance coverage.

You see, in California, the State with the greatest exposure to earthquake damage, only about 1 in 10 homeowners has insurance to pay for earthquake damage. Other States, including Washington, Oregon, Alaska, Tennessee, Missouri and Arkansas, also have significant earthquake risks and low rates of earthquake insurance.

Insurance coverage rates are so low that many believe it has now become a national crisis.

Because when homes aren't structurally sound, and insurance is lacking, local earthquake recovery costs quickly become America's costs.

The math is simple: less insurance means more Federal spending after a disaster.

For example, the August 2011 Virginia earthquake was devastating to

homeowners in and around Spotsylvania County. Most of those homeowners did not have an insurance policy that covered earthquake damage.

Mr. Cantor, the House Majority Leader, summed it up: ``Obviously the problem is most people in Virginia don't have earthquake insurance. That is going to be a hardship. If there needs to be money from the Federal Government, we'll find the money.''

Congress did ultimately find that money. A Federal disaster declaration was made, and homeowners received more than $16 million to cover uninsured losses.

But with bigger disasters come bigger uninsured losses.

Consider the costs of Hurricanes Katrina and Sandy.

The GAO estimates that the federal government provided about $26 billion to homeowners who lacked adequate insurance in response to Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma.

Congress provided $16 billion housing recovery for Sandy victims.

The bottom line is this: Uninsured homeowners drive up federal disaster spending. So if we can find a way to convert uninsured homeowners into insured homeowners, we will lower federal disaster spending and save American taxpayers millions each year.

The Earthquake Insurance Affordability Act will do just that. It will make earthquake insurance more affordable and expand access to coverage. It will dedicate non-federal funding to earthquake loss- mitigation programs to make houses and communities more resilient.

At its core, this legislation would authorize a private-market debt- guarantee program. The U.S. Treasury would guarantee certain debt issued by eligible state earthquake insurance programs following a catastrophic earthquake.

The debt would be limited in amount, and pre-arranged, and the eligible State programs would be highly creditworthy.

By definition, this legislation is designed to promote the use of private capital to finance earthquake risk. So this means that private capital, not Congressional appropriations, will support rebuilding homes and restoring communities.

The Federal guarantee will assure that qualified insurance programs can sell debt at reasonable rates, even during difficult post-disaster market conditions.

By lowering interest rates, insurance programs can spend less on interest and reinsurance, and instead invest that money on rate reductions and mitigation.

Rate reduction is the key goal; because uninsured homeowners overwhelmingly attribute their lack of insurance to the high price of these policies.

The California Earthquake Authority, the largest earthquake-insurance provider in the state, estimates the Earthquake Insurance Affordability Act will allow them to lower premiums and direct millions of dollars into mitigating homes.

That means the bill will not only lower insurance rates, but thousands more homes would become more earthquake-resistant.

Every homeowner who benefits from this legislation is one less homeowner who will rely on Federal disaster benefits after a catastrophic earthquake--that's millions of taxpayer dollars saved.

I know some of my colleagues will be concerned about putting the full faith and credit of our Federal Government behind insurance programs that are working to pay off catastrophic damages. I shared these concerns; and that is why the bill mandates strict criteria for determining how and when an insurance program can access a Federal guarantee.

First, the program must be an independent, State-run program.

Second, the program must be not for profit. The benefits of a Federal guarantee must go to policyholders, not shareholders.

Third, and most importantly, only financially sound programs are eligible. Before any Federal guarantee is offered, the Treasury Department must carefully confirm, then certify, that the program can repay the debt it incurs.

What is more: as a condition getting approved by the Department, the program must cover all actual and expected costs of conducting these credit reviews and administering the program.

Because of these key features, initial estimates from Congressional Budget Office staff affirm that this legislation brings no budgetary impact.

An independent assessment by the RAND Corporation also found that a program such as this would likely save tens of millions of dollars during a major disaster.

The bill brings other benefits to the taxpayer as well. Under a new provision added to the bill this year, participating State insurance programs must dedicate 2 percent of their Federal guarantee toward mitigating vulnerable properties and providing earthquake-hazard education.

Again, these mitigation funds will bring real benefits to homeowners, without appropriating Federal funds.

According to the United States Geological Survey, there is a 99.7 percent chance that a magnitude 6.7 earthquake will strike California within the next 30 years.

Even more concerning--the USGS forecasts a 46 percent chance that a much more devastating magnitude 7.5 or higher earthquake will occur in California during the same period.

The question is what are we doing to prepare?

Will we stick with the status quo; a system where the Federal Government comes in after the fact and spends billions to try to clean up the mess but leaves the community just as vulnerable to the next disaster?

Or will we apply the lessons from disasters like the 1994 Northridge earthquake where we spent the equivalent of more than $10 billion, and transition to a system where homeowners are encouraged to share the financial burden by purchasing earthquake insurance and making their homes stronger?

In the current budget environment, the choice cannot be simpler. We cannot continue to spend billions on disaster relief when reliable, cheaper options are available.

With a few simple steps, the Earthquake Insurance Affordability will create an affordable mechanism to help our country prepare for, and recover more quickly from, the major earthquakes that we all know are just around the corner. I urge my colleagues to quickly adopt this critical legislation.

Mr. President, I rise to support the Levin-McCain amendment, and I have added my name as a cosponsor. I would also like to speak in support of provisions authored by Chairman Levin that are in this year's National Defense Authorization Act, which provides more flexibility that the President and Secretary of Defense need in order to move detainees from Guantanamo.

I strongly support the Levin-McCain-Feinstein amendment. Here is what it would do: It would clarify that Guantanamo detainees transferred to the United States for law of war detention do not have any additional rights or benefits such as the right to claim asylum. So it limits it.

It would clarify that Gitmo detainees transferred to the United States may not be released from law of war detention into the United States.

Finally, it would require a detailed plan to be submitted to Congress on how to close Guantanamo, including the specific facilities intended to be used to hold detainees inside the United States.

I have heard Senator McCain talk about this, request it, and I believe it is a very valid need.

It has been 12 years since the attacks of 9/11 and the United States invasion of Afghanistan. In the ensuing years 779 people were brought to Guantanamo without charge, and for many of them, simply for being at the wrong place at the wrong time. Most of the 164 left have been held for more than 10 years. Those transferred to Guantanamo from CIA custody in black sites have been there now for 7 years. Unfortunately, we still have not figured out a way to close Guantanamo.

President George W. Bush called for it to be closed. So did former Secretaries of State Condoleezza Rice and Collin Powell, as well as former Secretaries of Defense Bob Gates and Leon Panetta, among others.

In fact, here is what President Bush wrote on pages 179 and 180 of his memoir Decision Points:

. . . there are things I wish had come out differently. I

am frustrated that the military tribunals moved so slowly.

Even after the Military Commissions Act was passed, another

lawsuit delayed the process again. By the time I left office,

we held only two trials. The difficulty of conducting trials

made it harder to meet a goal I had set in my second term:

closing the prison at Guantanamo in a responsible way. While

I believe opening Guantanamo after 9/11 was necessary, the

detention facility had become a propaganda tool for our

enemies and a distraction for our allies.

While I would like to go much further and close the facility immediately, the provisions in this bill will ease the transfer restrictions so that detainees can be held in other countries or tried, convicted, and put in a proper maximum security facility in the United States.

There are three categories of detainees left at Guantanamo:

First, 46 detainees will continue to be held on preventive detention, meaning they are being held under international law until the end of hostilities--whenever that may be. It could be years; it could be decades.

Second, 34 detainees have been slated for prosecution, and of those three detainees have already been convicted in a military commission and are still serving their time at Guantanamo. But most of these 34 detainees have not even been charged, and there is no indication when they will be.

The final category is the largest--84 of the 164 detainees currently at Guantanamo were cleared for transfer by a 2010--that's 3 years ago-- interagency process carried out by our national security and intelligence agencies. But current law needlessly complicates efforts to transfer those 84 men.

President Bush transferred over 530 detainees from Guantanamo during his time in office and, unfortunately, many went on to commit terrorist acts because there were no individual assessments done on each detainee. But these individual assessments have been carried out by the Obama administration.

Despite his commitment to close Guantanamo, President Obama has been able to transfer only 67 detainees during his first term, and only two recommended for transfer have been successfully sent home under the burdensome procedures now in place. More are on the way, but this is an unacceptable delay because the government cleared these detainees for transfer years ago.

Sections 1031, 1032, and 1033 of this bill will give the President more flexibility to transfer these detainees out of Guantanamo. It is long overdue. I thank the chairman, who is sitting in front of me, and the ranking member for these provisions. But even under these provisions, the Secretary of Defense would still have to certify that the transfer is in our Nation's security interests and that appropriate steps have been taken to address the risk of recidivism. Congress would have to continue to be notified of such transfers.

In March of this year, Lt. Gen. John F. Kelly, the head of the U.S. Southern Command which has military responsibility for Guantanamo, testified to Congress about the massive hunger strikes that were going on at the time and said the detainees were devastated at the lack of transfers and the government's failure to execute plans to close it as the President has promised.

In June of this year, I traveled to Guantanamo with Senator McCain and the President's Chief of Staff to see this devastation for myself. On our trip, we saw the process that is used to retain the detainees as they are forced from their cells and brought in to be force fed. We did not see a detainee being force fed, but we saw the tube that is forced up their nose and down their throat into their stomach. It is coated with olive oil or Lanacane, if necessary, and it is done daily. We saw the restraints--at the legs, the arms, and the head where detainees are held--not too different from the image of a death row convict in an electric chair.

I said at the time and I will say it again today, the military and civilian personnel at work on Guantanamo are carrying out their duties with dedication, skill, and honor. My opposition to continued detention at Guantanamo is not an indictment against them; it is with a failed and bankrupt policy, including here in Congress, and now is the time to change it.

Another thing that struck me is the enormous costs we are sinking into this isolated facility each year. Detention operations at Guantanamo now total approximately $5 billion since the facility opened in January of 2002. According to the most recent estimates provided by the Department of Defense, the total cost for fiscal year 2013 is estimated to be $454.1 million, which equals approximately $2.8 million per detainee. That works out to be more than 35 times the cost to hold the prisoner in a supermax facility in Florence, CO. This supermax facility currently houses a number of Al Qaeda terrorists, including Zacarias Moussaoui, Shoe Bomber Richard Reid, and the would-be Christmas Day Bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab.

In this era of sequestration and furloughs, how can we justify spending approximately $2.8 million per Guantanamo detainee?

Now, even with near unanimous support across the current and past administration to close the structure, some appear to question whether there still is a national security need to shutter the facility. I believe it is clear that Guantanamo is still a symbol that motivates our enemies and draws more and more young Muslims to fight against the United States.

This is not just my determination but also the finding of our intelligence community. Last week, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper wrote to the Senate Intelligence Committee noting his support for the closure of Guantanamo in which he offered the following examples of how Al

Qaeda and its affiliates continue to reference Guantanamo in furtherance of their global jihadist goals.

Al Qaeda leader Ayman Zawahiri, in an audio statement in July of this year, cited the detention without trial of Gitmo prisoners as one indication of American hypocrisy and indiscriminate persecution of innocent Muslims. An article about the Boston Marathon bombings, in the most recent edition of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula's ``Inspire'' magazine--this is kind of a diabolical magazine that Al Qaeda puts out and this is one published in June--highlighted the ongoing detention of prisoners at Gitmo as one of the purported justifications of terrorist attacks such as 9/11 and the Boston Marathon bombings.

Here is what the article said:

If we note down all that has been and is still being

carried out by America against Muslim nations, we will run

out of pages. . . . There is also the secret prisons and

black sites file, we could not miss out Guantanamo Bay

detention camp. The American Nation should have a good grasp

of all of these and other historic facts so that they can

comprehend the background and the context of the Boston

Marathon operation, Detroit, September 11 and other

operations which are barely a wave of anger; vengeance.

Furthermore, Guantanamo is referenced 20 times in the previous 10 issues of ``Inspire'' magazine.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the letter from the DNI dated November 12, 2013.

Mr. President, I just visited the 9/11 memorial this past Saturday and was extraordinarily moved by that memorial. It is an amazing place. It really brings to one's heart the gravity of what that situation was. We then went down to the museum and I saw exactly where the plane went through the steel superstructure and the staircase where hundreds of our people fled with smoke following them down those stairs. We must prevent another 9/11.

I note there is a letter from certain members of the September 11th Families for Peaceful Tomorrows that has been sent to us in favor of this bill and the detainee transfer provisions in the bill. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the letter from the September 11th Families for Peaceful Tomorrows.

Mr. President, by the end of President Obama's term in office, some detainees will have been held at Guantanamo without charge or trial for 15 years--15 years. We need to change this outcome, and we can do so

with no threat to our Nation's security.

For one detainee, Ibrahim Idris, his physical and mental problems at Guantanamo have gone on for so long that the government decided to finally drop its opposition to his legal argument that he is far too sick to stay locked up. There are others at Guantanamo who are desperate and in need of medical treatment.

Mr. President, if I may finish this paragraph.

I thank the chairman.

That is why section 32 of this Defense bill will allow the Department of Defense to temporarily transfer Guantanamo detainees to the United States for emergency or critical medical treatment. No one is talking about releasing these detainees into the United States. The section is about providing medical care to people in our custody.

The other Guantanamo provisions in this year's defense bill clarify and improve the existing authority to transfer detainees out of Guantanamo, to other nations, responsibly. Specifically, Section 1031 replaces a cumbersome six-part certification requirement and partial waiver regime in current law with a more sensible, factor-based standard designed to mitigate any risks, but allow transfers to foreign countries and into the U.S. for criminal prosecution.

Let me be clear about this last point: Al Qaeda terrorists should be transferred to the U.S. for prosecution in Federal criminal courts because for some of them, Federal criminal court is the only option left besides indefinite detention or release.

I regret to say this, but the military commission system at Guantanamo has failed. Although the issue is being appealed, under current law, the military commission system cannot be used to prosecute the terrorists at Gitmo for the crimes of material support and conspiracy, which are two crimes commonly charged in federal criminal court. That restriction has complicated the efforts of the military prosecutors to convict terrorists.

Don't we want the chance to bring these terrorists to justice instead of releasing them or holding them forever without charge? Wasn't the reason we passed these criminal penalties into law so that they could be used against terrorists such as those Al Qaeda members who conspired against the United States, or aided the terrorists involved in the attacks of September 11?

Now that we have been able to observe the different iterations of the military commission system over the years, it is clear that it does not provide swift justice for either the detainees or the victims who want to see these accused terrorists brought to justice. Consider the following information about the military commission system.

Military commission prosecutions have led to short sentences and zero death penalty convictions.

Three of seven individuals convicted in military commissions are already out of prison living freely in their home countries of Yemen, Australia, and Sudan. A fourth detainee who was convicted could be released from Guantanamo later this year, a fifth is serving his sentence in Canada, and a sixth now has his case on appeal.

Military Commissions at Guantanamo have cost the U.S. $600 million since 2007. That's $600 million to prosecute seven people.

By comparison, Federal criminal courts offer a more experienced and less constitutionally risky venue. There have been 533 terrorism- related convictions in Federal criminal courts since 9/11.

The President should have the option to add some of the detainees currently at Guantanamo to that conviction list. Section 1033 of this year's defense authorization bill will allow the Secretary of Defense to transfer Gitmo detainees to the U.S. for detention and trial if the Secretary of Defense determines that, No. 1, doing so is in the U.S. national security interest, and No. 2, that public safety issues have been addressed.

Allowing detainees to be brought to the U.S. and charged in Federal court will work to put an end to the delay of justice and the extreme cost of the experimental justice system at Guantanamo Bay. It is the quickest and best way to ensure detainees will answer for their terrorist crimes and serve out long prison sentences.

For those relatively few detainees who can't be tried but instead have been slated for continued detention until the end of hostilities, bringing them to the United States presents a more cost-effective and less controversial option. Facilities in the United States are up to the task. I don't believe there is any more risk of a Guantanamo detainee escaping from a maximum security facility than there is from a prisoner getting out of Supermax. It has never been done.

I know transferring Guantanamo detainees out of the facility where they have been for 10 or more years is not politically popular. These are not easy decisions, but we have to consider the alternatives.

Do we want 84 detainees who have been cleared for transfer to other countries to languish in our prison any longer? Again, ``cleared for transfer,'' doesn't mean these detainees will automatically go free. ``Cleared for transfer'' means they could still be detained by foreign governments after they are transferred.

Do we want detainees who could be prosecuted quickly and serve long prison sentences to avoid being brought to justice any longer?

Isn't it time to close Guantanamo once and for all? I believe Guantanamo is, has been, and always will be a dark spot on our history, so the sooner we get rid of it, the better.

I support the Guantanamo language included in this bill by Chairman Levin and ask my colleagues to support the Levin-McCain Amendment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am proud today to support the Drug Quality and Security Act because it marks an important step forward in protecting the safety and integrity of our Nation's drug supply. California has been a leader in addressing this issue and played a key role in creating a solution.

Patients deserve peace of mind when it comes to purchasing drugs. When a parent walks into a pharmacy to pick up a prescription for a sick child, she should be confident that the drugs she is picking up are safe and have not been tampered with. What is perhaps not known to many people, however, is that in today's drug supply system, there is no standard process for oversight to trace drugs through the supply chain system and make sure they were in the right hands and properly stored the whole time.

We hear occasionally about infected or counterfeit drugs. These are shocking stories. Last year, New England Compounding Center, or NECC, a compounding manufacturer from Framingham, MA, produced contaminated medicine that sickened over 750 people all across the country. I'm very sad to say that 64 people have died, needlessly, because of these contaminated drugs.

A report by the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, HELP, Committee from earlier this year found that NECC was known to produce drugs that were mislabeled, did not contain the correct dosage of active ingredients and were made using equipment that was not properly sterilized.

You might think that a story like this is rare. What we have learned is that it is not. The report by the HELP Committee found that in the 8 months immediately after the outbreak caused by NECC-manufactured drugs, 48 other compounding companies were found to be producing drugs that were either unsafe or were made in unsafe environments.

The problems do not stop with the manufacturers. People often do not realize that drugs do not usually travel directly from a manufacturer to a pharmacist. In fact, they may make many stops along the way. Manufacturers, resellers, wholesalers, distributors--these are some of the entities that can receive, resell and ship drugs before they get to the pharmacist or patient. At any time in the delivery process, there is opportunity for counterfeit drugs to enter the supply chain or real drugs to be diverted for illegitimate uses.

In 2009, for example, 129,000 vials of insulin were stolen. These vials later reappeared and were then sold to pharmacies and hospitals. We do not know who was handling these vials after they were stolen, or if they were stored under appropriate conditions--a real threat to patients.

This bill does the following:

First, it establishes a comprehensive, electronic, interoperable framework for tracing the distribution history of every individual unit that passes through the drug supply chain. The effect of this part of the bill is to establish a ``chain of custody'' or ``pedigree'' for each prescription drug dispensed to patients. Should a drug be diverted, this ``chain of custody'' will provide important information to Federal regulators when counterfeit drugs are detected in the supply chain.

Second, it clearly distinguishes the scope of what constitutes the traditional pharmacy practice of drug compounding from those, like NECC, who seek to exploit a patchwork of current Federal laws and regulations to produce large quantities of unsafe drug products under the guise of compounding.

I am proud that California has led the Nation in taking real steps to address the issue of pharmaceutical supply chain safety.

In fact, California passed a law to require more oversight of the drug supply chain in 2004. Since then, the State Board of Pharmacy and State legislators have worked together with representatives from industry to perfect the law.

This action by California has been a key influence in drafting language on the Federal level. The Board of Pharmacy has provided many hours of technical assistance and has really been a team player. I commend the hard work of Chairman Harkin, Ranking Member Alexander, and his predecessor Senator Enzi, as well as Senators Bennet and Burr and their staff who have worked tirelessly to bring this legislation to the finish line. Many stakeholders were involved in drafting this bipartisan, bicameral solution that addresses the issue of substandard manufacturing practices and drug supply chain safety.

This is a remarkable step toward improved safety of medicine that Americans rely on every day.

Mr. President, I am pleased to re-introduce, along with Senator Grassley, the Saving Kids From Dangerous Drugs Act of 2013.

For years, law enforcement has seen drug dealers flavor and market their illegal drugs to entice minors, using techniques like combining drugs with chocolate and fruit flavors, and even packaging them to look like actual candy and soda. This bill would address this serious and dangerous problem by providing stronger penalties when drug dealers alter controlled substances by combining them with beverages or candy products, marketing or packaging them to resemble legitimate products, or flavoring or coloring them, all with the intent to sell the drugs to minors.

Recent media reports demonstrate the need for this legislation. In January of this year, the Drug Enforcement Administration seized THC- laden soft drinks, cookies, brownies, and candy from two phony medical marijuana dispensaries in my home state of California that grossed an estimated $3.5 million annually. The names of the products seized show how the purveyors of these drugs marketed them under names that resembled popular soda and candy products: bottles were labeled ``7 High,'' ``Dr. Feelgood,'' and ``Laughing Lemonade''; cookies and brownies had such names as ``White Chip Hash Brownie'' and ``Reese's Crumbled Hash Brownie''; and candy was named ``Jolly Stones THC Medicated Hard Candies'' and ``Stone Candy.''

Less than two weeks ago, police seized more than 40 pounds of THC- laced candy from a campus apartment at West Chester University, outside of Philadelphia. This candy was vividly colored, in a virtual rainbow assortment--pink, yellow, orange, blue, and red. When college students are peddling these drugs, it is not hard to see how minors can become targets of the operation.

Many recent incidents involve methamphetamine, a drug whose users face a ``very high'' risk of ``developing psychotic symptoms-- hallucinations and delusions,'' according to a recent Harvard Medical School publication. A 2007 article in USA Today entitled ``DEA: Flavored meth use on the rise'' stated that ``[r]eports of candy- flavored methamphetamine are emerging around the nation, stirring concern among police and abuse prevention experts that drug dealers are marketing the drug to younger people.'' In March of last year, police in Chicago warned parents about a drug that ``looks and smells like candy,'' called ``strawberry quick'' or ``strawberry meth.'' Because of the drug's similarity to candy, police urged parents to tell their children not to take candy from anyone, not even a classmate.

Regrettably, this is a problem that has persisted for many years, with drug dealers trying various methods to lure kids to try many dangerous drugs. The dealers' logic is simple: the best way to create a life-long customer is to hook that person when he or she is young. According to an Indiana sheriff quoted in a 2007 article entitled ``Fruity meth aimed at kids,'' flavoring a drug like methamphetamine makes it ``more attractive to teens, because it takes away meth's normally bitter taste, and some dealers will tell potential users this meth is safer, and has less side effects.''

That is why the practice of flavoring or coloring drugs to entice youth is so dangerous--it deceives the young customer into believing that he or she is not actually ingesting drugs, or at least not ingesting drugs that are as potent as non-flavored drugs. One in three teens already believes there is ``only a slight or no risk in trying [methamphetamine],'' according to the 2007 National Meth Use & Attitudes Survey. When you flavor methamphetamine or market it as candy or soda, the number of teens who believe that the drug is not harmful is surely higher.

The size and sophistication of some of these operations is particularly alarming. In March of 2006, DEA discovered large-scale marijuana cultivation and production facilities in Emeryville and Oakland, California. Thousands of marijuana plants, and hundreds of marijuana-related soda, candy, and other products were seized from the drug dealers' facilities. The products were designed and packaged to look like legitimate products, including an item called ``Munchy Way'' candy bars.

Similarly, in March of 2008, Drug Enforcement Administration, DEA, agents seized cocaine near Modesto, California, that was valued at $272,400; a significant quantity had been flavored like cinnamon, coconut, lemon, or strawberry. After that raid, one DEA agent stated that ``[a]ttempting to lure new, younger customers to a dangerous drug by adding candy `flavors' is an unconscionable marketing technique.''

I completely agree. That is why we need to act now to stop those who alter drugs to make them more appealing to youth.

Under current federal law, there is no enhanced penalty for a person who alters a controlled substance to make the drug more appealing to youth. Someone who alters a controlled substance in ways prohibited by the legislation we are introducing today would be subject to an additional penalty of up to ten years, in addition to the penalty for the underlying offense. If someone is convicted of a second offense that is prohibited by the act, that person would face an additional penalty of up to 20 years.

This bill sends a strong and clear message to drug dealers--if you flavor or candy up your drugs to try to entice our children, there will be a very heavy price to pay. It will help stop drug dealers from engaging in these activities, and punish them appropriately if they don't.

The Senate passed a similar version of this legislation in the 111th Congress, but it was not considered in the House. This year, I am pleased to have the support of many of the leading national law enforcement organizations as we try to get this bill over the finish line: the Major Cities Chiefs Association, the Fraternal Order of Police, the Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America, the Major County Sheriffs' Association, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, the National HIDTA Directors Association,

and the National District Attorneys Association have endorsed the legislation. They are on the front lines working to keep these drugs out of our communities, and I am proud to have their support.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to re-introduce, along with Senator Grassley, the Saving Kids From Dangerous Drugs Act of 2013.

For years, law enforcement has seen drug dealers flavor and market their illegal drugs to entice minors, using techniques like combining drugs with chocolate and fruit flavors, and even packaging them to look like actual candy and soda. This bill would address this serious and dangerous problem by providing stronger penalties when drug dealers alter controlled substances by combining them with beverages or candy products, marketing or packaging them to resemble legitimate products, or flavoring or coloring them, all with the intent to sell the drugs to minors.

Recent media reports demonstrate the need for this legislation. In January of this year, the Drug Enforcement Administration seized THC- laden soft drinks, cookies, brownies, and candy from two phony medical marijuana dispensaries in my home state of California that grossed an estimated $3.5 million annually. The names of the products seized show how the purveyors of these drugs marketed them under names that resembled popular soda and candy products: bottles were labeled ``7 High,'' ``Dr. Feelgood,'' and ``Laughing Lemonade''; cookies and brownies had such names as ``White Chip Hash Brownie'' and ``Reese's Crumbled Hash Brownie''; and candy was named ``Jolly Stones THC Medicated Hard Candies'' and ``Stone Candy.''

Less than two weeks ago, police seized more than 40 pounds of THC- laced candy from a campus apartment at West Chester University, outside of Philadelphia. This candy was vividly colored, in a virtual rainbow assortment--pink, yellow, orange, blue, and red. When college students are peddling these drugs, it is not hard to see how minors can become targets of the operation.

Many recent incidents involve methamphetamine, a drug whose users face a ``very high'' risk of ``developing psychotic symptoms-- hallucinations and delusions,'' according to a recent Harvard Medical School publication. A 2007 article in USA Today entitled ``DEA: Flavored meth use on the rise'' stated that ``[r]eports of candy- flavored methamphetamine are emerging around the nation, stirring concern among police and abuse prevention experts that drug dealers are marketing the drug to younger people.'' In March of last year, police in Chicago warned parents about a drug that ``looks and smells like candy,'' called ``strawberry quick'' or ``strawberry meth.'' Because of the drug's similarity to candy, police urged parents to tell their children not to take candy from anyone, not even a classmate.

Regrettably, this is a problem that has persisted for many years, with drug dealers trying various methods to lure kids to try many dangerous drugs. The dealers' logic is simple: the best way to create a life-long customer is to hook that person when he or she is young. According to an Indiana sheriff quoted in a 2007 article entitled ``Fruity meth aimed at kids,'' flavoring a drug like methamphetamine makes it ``more attractive to teens, because it takes away meth's normally bitter taste, and some dealers will tell potential users this meth is safer, and has less side effects.''

That is why the practice of flavoring or coloring drugs to entice youth is so dangerous--it deceives the young customer into believing that he or she is not actually ingesting drugs, or at least not ingesting drugs that are as potent as non-flavored drugs. One in three teens already believes there is ``only a slight or no risk in trying [methamphetamine],'' according to the 2007 National Meth Use & Attitudes Survey. When you flavor methamphetamine or market it as candy or soda, the number of teens who believe that the drug is not harmful is surely higher.

The size and sophistication of some of these operations is particularly alarming. In March of 2006, DEA discovered large-scale marijuana cultivation and production facilities in Emeryville and Oakland, California. Thousands of marijuana plants, and hundreds of marijuana-related soda, candy, and other products were seized from the drug dealers' facilities. The products were designed and packaged to look like legitimate products, including an item called ``Munchy Way'' candy bars.

Similarly, in March of 2008, Drug Enforcement Administration, DEA, agents seized cocaine near Modesto, California, that was valued at $272,400; a significant quantity had been flavored like cinnamon, coconut, lemon, or strawberry. After that raid, one DEA agent stated that ``[a]ttempting to lure new, younger customers to a dangerous drug by adding candy `flavors' is an unconscionable marketing technique.''

I completely agree. That is why we need to act now to stop those who alter drugs to make them more appealing to youth.

Under current federal law, there is no enhanced penalty for a person who alters a controlled substance to make the drug more appealing to youth. Someone who alters a controlled substance in ways prohibited by the legislation we are introducing today would be subject to an additional penalty of up to ten years, in addition to the penalty for the underlying offense. If someone is convicted of a second offense that is prohibited by the act, that person would face an additional penalty of up to 20 years.

This bill sends a strong and clear message to drug dealers--if you flavor or candy up your drugs to try to entice our children, there will be a very heavy price to pay. It will help stop drug dealers from engaging in these activities, and punish them appropriately if they don't.

The Senate passed a similar version of this legislation in the 111th Congress, but it was not considered in the House. This year, I am pleased to have the support of many of the leading national law enforcement organizations as we try to get this bill over the finish line: the Major Cities Chiefs Association, the Fraternal Order of Police, the Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America, the Major County Sheriffs' Association, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, the National HIDTA Directors Association,

and the National District Attorneys Association have endorsed the legislation. They are on the front lines working to keep these drugs out of our communities, and I am proud to have their support.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill.

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

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

Madam President, I have come to the floor to give my views on the Employment Non-Discrimination Act--better known as ENDA-- because this is essentially a bill with a long history. It means a great deal to me personally because of the work I did in the city and county of San Francisco a long time ago.

Actually, nearly 40 years ago, in 1978, I was in my third term as president of the board of supervisors when an ordinance to prohibit discrimination in both housing and employment on the basis of sexual orientation was actually passed by the board. I think it was a vote of 10 to 1. I introduced the legislation in my first few years as president of the board, and it was the first such legislation introduced in a major city anywhere in the United States. It was difficult to pass. There was a long debate. I look back on the press and it was a 2-hour debate, but it did pass back in 1978.

It is true that I at the time had some concerns. So I have watched the legislation implemented over the last four decades. It has protected people's jobs and livelihoods from unfair treatment. It has been good for people and for business. I had some concerns. Would there be a lot of objections?

Actually, in the time I was a supervisor and in the 9 years I was mayor, there were no objections. All of a sudden the city really came to see what equality meant. I knew then, and I know now, this legislation is the right thing to do, and it is not going to result in inappropriate behavior in the workplace or any of the other hobgoblins that the legislation's opponents raise.

In 1996, ENDA came to this floor. An up-or-down vote on this bill was negotiated the same day the Defense of Marriage Act--or what we call DOMA--would have such a vote. These votes happened on September 10, 1996. The defense of marriage bill passed. I was one of 14 Senators to oppose it, 85 of my colleagues supported it, and President Clinton signed it into law. As we all know now, what it essentially did was say that any gay couple that was legally married could not access more than 1,100 Federal rights that were accorded to married couples. Now some 14 States have legalized gay marriage, and just recently it looks like Illinois is on its way to doing the same.

ENDA failed by a single vote back then. That was a vote of 49 to 50. Today things are very different, but there is still a long way to go. In an historic decision in June, the Supreme Court struck down the core piece of the Defense of Marriage Act. But DOMA is not yet fully repealed, and repealing it remains necessary. So, in my view, the Defense of Marriage Act must and will be one day repealed once and for all. Although such legislation as ENDA has been adopted in numerous States, there is still no Federal end to discrimination. That means that most gay, lesbian, and transgender individuals are without critical protections against employment discrimination. In fact, most people, over 56 percent of the population, live in the 29 States that have not enacted employment protections for gays and lesbians. Over 66 percent of people live in the 34 States that have not enacted such protections for transgender individuals.

There is no question, discrimination in the workplace against these groups remains a big problem. Let me give just a few examples. There is the case of Mia Macy, a case in which the Justice Department found that Ms. Macy's transgender status played an impermissible role in the hiring process. She had, for 12 years, been a police detective in Phoenix, AZ. She was a veteran. She applied for an open position in an ATF ballistics lab to do ballistics imagery work that she was certified to do. She was told she could have the position, subject to a background check.

Then Macy revealed her transgender status to the government contractor staffing these positions. Her background check was ordered stopped by ATF soon thereafter. She received an email stating the position was no longer available because of funding cuts, even though there was no evidence that was the case.

It turns out that the number of positions available had hastily been cut from two to one, and the person hired for that one position lacked much of the experience Macy had.

Macy was, according to DOJ's decision, ``very likely better qualified'' than the individual actually hired for that position. So this is wrong. Ballistics matching can be the difference between a shooter in jail and a shooter, who might kill again, walking the streets of our neighborhoods. The person who was actually hired should be the person who can do the best job, period, regardless of whether the person is gay, straight, or transgender.

Another case involves a police officer from the city of St. Cloud, MN. According to a court opinion, the officer was an ``excellent'' officer. He was consistently awarded marks as ``excellent'' or ``competent'' on his performance reports. The officer got ``letters of recognition and commendation for his accomplishments, including his work on the Community Crime Impact Team, his work against drunk driving, his performance in apprehending a sexual assault suspect, and for his work in recovering a stolen vehicle.''

Then he came out as gay. After that, according to the officer, he almost immediately ``was subject to increased scrutiny, increased disciplinary measures, excessively thorough documentation and surreptitiously recorded interventions'' as well as ``multiple internal investigations'' and removal from assignments.

The Federal court found that ``the almost immediate shift'' in the treatment of this officer ``supports an inference of unlawful discrimination'' under the equal protection clause of the Constitution, which applies to State and local agencies. But if a private employer had discriminated like this, there likely would have been no Federal protection.

In a case out of Oregon, an individual who ran a production line for battery separators was subjected to harassment on the job. He was called ``Tinker-bell'' and ``a worthless queer.'' He was described using other phrases that I simply will not say on the Senate floor because they are graphic and beyond the pale. I think they would shock many of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle. This harassment occurred on a daily basis, sometimes in the presence of a supervisor. Then, 2 days after reporting the harassment to human resources, the individual was fired. In this case, the Federal court found the evidence credible enough to warrant a trial under Oregon law.

Sometimes discrimination is not as clear as it is in these cases. I am going to quote from a 93-year-old constituent of mine who called my office urging full support for this bill. This is what he said:

I don't usually take the time to call my Senator but this

is important to me. I've lived in San Francisco almost my

whole life, and at 93 years old I have seen a lot. Even in a

liberal State like California, as a gay man I never felt

equal to my colleagues.

This is a quote.

I used to work at a bank, and I kept working until I was

79, to earn my retirement. I was afraid to bring my husband

to company parties, and I never wanted to seem too flamboyant

to my supervisors. It seems so ridiculous when I think back

on it, but people don't understand that this kind of

discrimination is subtle.

It broke my heart when I watched the Senate fall one vote

shy of passing ENDA back in the nineties. I hope the Senator

remembers what it used to be like, and fights to pass ENDA

today.

I do remember, and I do know that this bill will help stop discrimination in the workplace. The bill is simple. It says a person cannot be denied employment because of who that person is: Gay, straight or transgender. The bill provides no special privilege--no special privilege. It creates no quota. It creates no exemption from the codes of conduct or anything else. It does not allow inappropriate conduct in the workplace. In fact, the bill is narrower than title VII protections in certain respects. In my view, the bill does provide critical employment protections, and it is long past the time that it be signed into law.

Three years ago we recognized that a person's merit, not sexual orientation, is what matters for service in the military. The point is no different in this bill. If a person wants to be a ballistics expert, a police officer, a firefighter, a bank teller, a lawyer, a factory worker or anything else, the question should simply be, can the person do the job.

People have families, they have spouses, and they have children. They need to put food on the table. They have college expenses for their children, student loans to pay, and unforeseen medical expenses. They may have elderly parents that they care for and who need their assistance. All of this requires a job.

Should a person be denied that basic aspect of life, should a person's spouse or children or parents be hurt, simply because that person is gay or straight or transgender? For me the answer is simple; it is no.

That person should not engage in any conduct that would be unseemly for one of a heterosexual couple. The conduct rules are also important. If this legislation is enacted, which I hope very much will happen, that will be the law of the land, and it will be long overdue.

I wanted to come to the floor and indicate some of the past and go back to 35 years ago when the first employment bill that would prohibit discrimination of this type was enacted. I am very proud to have introduced it, and to have been a vote for it on the board of supervisors in San Francisco.

I yield the floor.