Floor Statements

Mr. President, 50 years after the assassination of John F. Kennedy, America still mourns his loss. For those of us who were inspired by his Presidency, it is easy to understand why. In a time of indifference, he reawakened this Nation to the finest meaning of citizenship--placing public service ahead of private interest.

That is why a half a century later, he remains a powerful symbol of a time of soaring idealism in America, when our people believed our country could do anything--even go to the moon.

John Kennedy also inspires Americans who know him only from history books or from the stories their parents and grandparents tell of that all-too-brief shining moment that was his Presidency.

John Kennedy was in the White House for only 1,000 days, not even 3 years. But his achievements exceeded his years. It's easy to dismiss his Presidency as one of rhetoric more than results. But to do so ignores the New Frontier he pioneered--a new era of economic growth, space exploration, civil rights advancements, conservation of natural resources, nuclear disarmament and generations of Americans who have made public service a way of life.

John Kennedy's immortal words, especially those of his Inaugural Address, still call us to action--to think beyond our own self- interests, and to do what is best for our country and the people of the world.

Like millions of Americans, I vividly recall the exact moment on that cold day of November 22, 1963, when I heard the shocking news from Dallas that the President had been shot. I was a junior at Farmington High School. By the time we were told of the tragedy, it was just after lunch and my classmates and I walked into English class. Mr. Simon Matthews, our English teacher who also was one of our football coaches, broke the unspeakable news.

Mr. Matthews announced austerely, ``The President has been shot.'' We thought he was joking and teased him to quit kidding us. He said again, ``The President has just been assassinated,'' and we were sent home from school early.

When I arrived home, I was stunned to walk in to my living room and find it filled by my entire family. I had never seen my grandfather or father or my uncles leave work early. It was a somber time for every member of my family as we tried to come to grips with the terrible news. It was just so hard to believe our President could be taken from us. But he was.

Three days later, it was decided that our family would go to Washington to pay our respects to the President. As an eager 16 year old who had just gotten my license a few months before, I volunteered to drive us in Papa's '58 Cadillac. Six of us piled into the car and made the trip to our Nation's capital.

I will never forget, as the caisson bearing the President's casket was led down Pennsylvania Avenue on its way to Arlington Cemetery, my cousins and I climbed into the trees for a better view of the procession. We saw the President's stricken family and friends, the somber Washington dignitaries and world leaders, and Black Jack, the riderless horse with boots turned backwards in the stirrups, a heartbreaking symbol of the loss of a great leader. As I watched the procession move slowly to the sad cadence of military drums, I thought of the time I had been fortunate enough to meet members of the Kennedy family.

I was working on my go-cart downstairs in the garage when they visited my family in Farmington as then-Senator Kennedy was preparing for the West Virginia presidential primary. My hands were dirty and greasy, but my mother insisted that I wipe them clean and come upstairs to meet a few people. As I climbed the steps, I smelled my grandmother, Mama Kay's, spaghetti. Everyone had gathered at the table for dinner and an exciting discussion about the political race ramping up in West Virginia. That was the day I shook hands with the Kennedys.

John Kennedy and his family spent so much time campaigning in West Virginia that he once quipped that ``West Virginia'' was the third word his daughter Caroline learned to pronounce. He once boasted that he was the only Presidential candidate in history, other than West Virginian John Davis in 1924, ``who knows where Slab Fork is and has been there.''

John Kennedy came to West Virginia to show that a Catholic could win in a predominantly Protestant State. Americans worried that a Catholic President would be controlled by the Pope and that Catholic Mass would be held in the White House every day. Let me just note here that John Kennedy carried the West Virginia primary in a landslide--with 60.8 percent. He won our votes and our heart. He went on to become, as he put it, ``not the Catholic candidate for President,'' but ``the

Democrat Party's candidate for President, who happens also to be a Catholic.'' But there was one Catholic Mass in the White House, on November 23, 1963--a Requiem Mass for the slain President.

As I reflect now on how much life intersected with John Kennedy's life, I prefer to think about the beginning of the Kennedy Presidency rather than its tragic ending. I prefer to remember his Inaugural Address. It was just 1,355 words and 14 minutes long, but it set in motion a generation of Americans with a passion for public service.

Some were inspired to defend liberty as soldiers, sailors, Marines and airmen. Some would march for civil rights in the South. Some would join the Peace Corps and become ambassadors of peace in villages throughout the world. And some would answer the call to service by seeking public office.

John Kennedy was a powerful and positive force in my life and the life of our Nation. To me, he embodied a time when politics could be harnessed to higher aspirations, to do good things for the country.

Not only did his Inaugural Address famously challenge us to ask ourselves what we can do for our country, it also provided timeless advice on how to overcome the bitterness of partisan politics. An election, he said, is ``not a victory of party, but a celebration of freedom,'' not an end but a beginning ``signifying renewal.'' That is still good advice.

John Kennedy was a committed Democrat and few people loved politics more than he and his family. But he understood--as he wrote in his book Profiles In Courage, that ``there are few if any issues where all the truth and all the right and all the angels are on one side.'' He accepted the fact that democracy relies on competing views and vigorous debate.

But he did not believe the objective should be to win political power but to solve our country's problems. As he once said, ``Let us not despair but act. Let us not seek the Republican answer or the Democratic answer but the right answer. Let us not seek to fix the blame for the past--let us accept our own responsibility for the future.''

That is what I have always tried to do--to find the right answer and to do what is best for my country and the generations of Americans to follow. That is why, 50 years after John Kennedy's death, I still try to follow his admonition to ``go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help knowing that here on earth God's work must truly be our own.''

He acknowledged that this was not the work of a hundred days, or of a thousand days, or of one administration, or of a lifetime, but of generations. Even so, he said, ``Let us begin.'' Mr. President, to you and to all our colleagues in the Senate, I say: Let us continue.

Mr. President, today I wish to observe the birthday of one of the greatest Americans to grace these Chambers--Cornelius Calvin Sale Jr., better known to us--and to history--as Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia.

Robert C. Byrd was born Cornelius Calvin Sale Jr. in North Wilkesboro, NC. He was 10 months old when his mother died from flu, and he was adopted by his aunt and uncle, Titus and Vlurma Byrd. They changed his name to Robert Carlyle Byrd and raised him in the coal- mining Appalachian region of West Virginia.

And in the 150 years of West Virginia's history, our State has had no greater advocate than Robert C. Byrd. Many in the Senate today served with Robert C. Byrd, and they can bear witness to the fact that the Senate, like the State of West Virginia, also had no greater advocate than Robert C. Byrd. Today would have been the Senator's 96th birthday, and every day since his passing in 2010, the people of West Virginia feel the loss of this great man.

The Senate also feels his loss because no one knew the Senate--its history, its traditions, its precedents--better than Robert C. Byrd.

He made it a point to meet with every new Senator and to impress upon them the fact that they were to be caretakers of this institution--an institution he regarded as both the morning star and the evening star of the American constitutional constellation. He also impressed upon them that they did not serve ``under'' any president, but that as a separate but equal branch of the government, they served ``with'' presidents, acting as a check on the executive's power. When he passed away, he was the longest serving member of Congress in our Nation's history and, as such, served with 11 Presidents.

In his long life, Robert C. Byrd had three great loves--his wife ``fair'' Erma, as he called her; the State of West Virginia; and the United States Senate. But he also had a great passion for the document from which the Senate and this great country sprang--the U.S. Constitution. I have always thought that is why he kept a copy of the Constitution in his coat pocket--it was easy to reach for quick reference, but in his coat pocket, it also was close to his heart. Even though he could recite most of it by memory, he consulted his dog-eared copy of the Constitution often and without hesitation. In its words, he often said, he always found wisdom, truth and excitement--the same excitement he felt as a boy in Wolf Creek Hollow, WV, reading by kerosene lamp about the heroes of the American Revolution and the birth of our Nation. And those words guided him every day of the 58 years he spent in Washington as a member of Congress and as a Senator.

Robert C. Byrd cast more than 18,500 votes in the Senate--a record that will never be equaled. Whether he voted with others or against them, it was never hard ideology with Robert C. Byrd. He had no use for narrow partisanship that trades on attack and values only victory.

Any time Robert C. Byrd spoke, the Senate came to a halt and Senators on both sides of the aisle leaned forward--to listen and to learn.

He ran for public office 15 times--and he never lost. He was first elected to the West Virginia legislature in 1946 and then was elected to three consecutive terms in the U.S. House of Representatives before his election to the Senate. He was a keen observer of politics--he advised more than one Presidential candidate to go to West Virginia, ``get a little coal dust'' on their hands and ``live in spirit with the working people.''

He was deeply proud of West Virginia and its people. He proudly defended his work to invest Federal dollars in his State.

He breathed new life into many communities with funding for highways, hospitals, universities, research institutes, scholarships and housing--giving West Virginians the opportunities he himself never had.

Robert C. Byrd's journey was, in many ways, America's journey. He came of age in an America segregated by race, which he eventually said was one of our country's greatest mistakes. And, as did America itself, he repented and made amends.

The moments that define the lives of most men are few. Not so with Robert C. Byrd. He devoted his life to his beloved Erma and his family and to public service. He was a major figure in the great panorama of American history for more than half a century. His devotion to the Senate and his colleagues was unequaled. His mastery of Senate rules and parliamentary procedures was legendary. And his contributions to West Virginia and to this Nation were monumental. He was a true giant of the Senate. He is as much a part of this Chamber as these 100 historic desks, these galleries, and these busts of Senate presidents.

Robert C. Byrd revered the Senate and the Senate revered Robert C. Byrd. It is for this reason that I wish to observe the anniversary of the birth of a great West Virginian and great American--Robert Carlyle Byrd.

May God bless his memory and his great spirit.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 5 minutes, and that after I conclude my remarks, Senator Chambliss be recognized, followed by Senator Ayotte.

Madam President, I rise to highlight for Senators the important work of the Airland Subcommittee in the fiscal year 2014 National Defense Authorization Act as reported by the Committee on Armed Services. I am very proud to be the chairman of the Airland Subcommittee and for the close working relationship I have with Senator Wicker, the ranking member of the subcommittee.

The Airland Subcommittee has broad responsibilities for substantial parts of the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force budgets. The Airland Subcommittee also has responsibility for National Guard and Reserve equipment and readiness. As a former governor, I know firsthand how effective the National Guard is, and they provide a great value for all Americans.

Throughout this process the goal of the Airland Subcommittee has been to promote and improve current and future readiness of our military, all while ensuring the most efficient and effective use of taxpayer dollars. This year the Airland Subcommittee has jurisdiction over $49 billion of the Defense

Department's base and overseas contingency budget. This includes $37.1 billion for procurement and $11.9 billion for research and development.

In this regard the Airland Subcommittee's recommendation fully supports the Department's budget request for Overseas Contingency Operations and would support most of the major weapons and equipment programs in the base as requested. However, sequestration presents many challenges. We can no longer spend billions of dollars buying equipment the military does not need or want. Just a few days ago, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of staff, General Dempsey, provided me with a list of programs the Department of Defense no longer needs and they want to retire.

This much is clear: We can no longer conduct business as usual. In fact, the Bowles-Simpson Commission recommended the Department of Defense and Congress establish a commission that would review major weapons programs unneeded by the Department. This is something we should take a look at. I look forward to working with my colleagues on this important issue, and the National Commission on the Structure of the Air Force is already reviewing and will make recommendations on the retirements and divestiture of aircraft the military no longer needs.

In future subcommittee work I will be reviewing General Dempsey's list and will be working with my colleagues on the programs the Department no longer needs.

Congress must debate this important issue so that we spend every dollar we have wisely and keep our military the strongest in the world.

I wish to compliment Senator Wicker again on how well we have worked together this year, and I thank Chairman Levin, Ranking Member Inhofe, and the wonderful committee staff who have worked so closely with my staff and me on this bill.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Dan Gilbert, my Department of Defense Fellow, and Erica Miller, my State Department Fellow, be granted floor privileges for the duration of the National Defense Authorization Act, through final passage.

Madam President, I am very proud to be a part of a group who truly put their country first. I have been here probably a shorter period of time than most of my colleagues--not quite 3 years. I think people know I have been a little bit frustrated at times, if not quite frustrated. I heard stories about how the Senate used to work and that when the going got tough, the Senators really got going. I have not seen much of that in the last 3 years.

We had a dichotomy of Senators--Angus King, my dear friend, who is an Independent from Maine, seven Republicans led by Senator Collins, and our Democratic colleagues--come together and play off each other's strengths. They did not play off of their egos at all.

Two weeks ago I could not believe the self-inflicted pain this Congress put upon the people of America by shutting down the government--also coming on the brink of a financial calamity, if you will, and not being able to pay our bills. I have watched businesses and individuals get into financial problems before. Financial problems can come in many different ways, but basically you have early warnings and can step in front of that so you can restructure your spending, restructure your habits, and get yourself whole again--it takes a while--or you can wait until it hits you, and then you have to foreclose or go bankrupt, and it is almost impossible to get yourself out of it.

This was really congressional-made. There may be times when we have pressures put upon us as a country where we will have to do extraordinary work to keep ourselves afloat, but this is not one, and it should not be made because of political dysfunction.

I saw our colleagues playing off of the strengths each person brought to the group, and it got stronger and stronger each day. We faced the shutdown that we thought was absolutely ridiculous and unnecessary and should never have happened, and then we were looking at facing a financial meltdown, if you will, the insolvency of our country, and that could not be tolerated.

As each person played off the other to try to help make this come together--I think Senator Collins explained it so well--we were able to have a piece of agreed-upon legislation that had a tremendous framework and good template that was presented to leadership here in the Senate. I applaud both of our leaders, Senator Reid and Senator McConnell, for taking that constructively and working with it. They worked together to try to make the best possible piece of legislation, and we encourage our colleagues in the House to accept that legislation.

I am hopeful for a large vote in the Senate. I am very much hopeful for that. I am hopeful that our colleagues in the House will accept that in the spirit of a bipartisan agreement we worked on. When we were doing this, we considered the House and what would be acceptable and palatable, but, more importantly, we took into consideration the American people and what they wanted us to do and why they sent us here.

In the spirit of the Senate, I am proud to see the Senate rise to the occasion and work the way I heard it used to work. I was able to experience that in the last 2 weeks, and I am proud to have been a part of that.

I thank all of my colleagues on the Republican side in both the Senate and the House. This is truly a time when America rose to show its best. Now we have to make sure we complete this.

During the negotiation we found out why we could not get to a budget conference. This bill will have a mandatory budget conference that has to report back and go back to some regular order. That was important for all of us to agree on. Everybody said there will be some criticism because of the short time period. We have a better framework than we have ever had in order to fix and repair the damage that has been done and address the uncertainty that will be lurking if we don't do something.

I am very pleased and proud. I thank Senator Collins, Senator Murkowski, Senator Klobuchar, Senator Pryor, Senator King, and Senator Heitkamp, and everybody who has worked so hard to make this happen. Again, I am proud to be a part of an extraordinary group of people who put the country before themselves.

First, I wish to apologize to the people of West Virginia. I am embarrassed and ashamed as a Senator and Member of Congress by how we are acting. I have been answering phones in my office. They are upset. I said: Well, you are not as upset as I am. I have a front-row seat, and it is not pretty.

This is not what we were sent here to do. It is not what I signed up for. It is not why I asked the people in West Virginia to allow me to represent what I consider to be the greatest State in the Nation, and I am sure each Senator feels the same way about their State and its wonderful people. I have always looked at public service as an opportunity to fix problems, to make life better, to be able to use the wisdom and skills we have obtained through our experiences in life and watching people and the compassion we have for people to try to make it better.

Shutting down government is simply unacceptable. I don't care what way a person looks at this, it is unacceptable.

This is the first time in 17 years that our government is not open for business--the first time in 17 years we are not open. This is self- inflicted. This did not happen by any outside forces. This has all been self-inflicted. It not only hurts the people of West Virginia deeply, it hurts people all over this country, and they are feeling the effects. This is only the second day, but it is 2 days too long.

Most of you know I am pretty moderate. I am very conservative on fiscal issues. This is how we were raised. We were expected to pay our bills, to take care of our debts, and take care of ourselves and our families. So I have watched that very carefully.

When I became Governor, the first thing I did was I tried to put our financial house in order in West Virginia so that basically we could take care of our values. That was our priority, based on what we wanted--our children to have opportunities. We never cut any services during the recession. We took care of our seniors with the dignity and respect and pride they should have. We took care of our veterans. We could not be everything to everybody, but we really watched our dollars and got our financial house in order. So I look at it from that standpoint, where I come from, as a proud West Virginia Democrat, but I am also very compassionate on social issues. Watching my grandparents and watching my family in the little town of Farmington, WV, where I grew up, people expected you to do things. They expected you to really chip in and help people, but they expected you to help yourself also, and they expected you to take care of those who could not, the less fortunate. I have always taken that with me in every aspect of public service.

I think I am reasonable and willing to compromise and work with anybody on any issue. I have always put my State's interests ahead of my party politics. I do not make any excuses. I really believe I am an absolutely privileged person to be living in the greatest country on Earth and to be a member of a great family in the great State of West Virginia. But I am an American, I am a West Virginian, and then I am a Democrat in West Virginia, and I have dear friends who are Republicans from West Virginia and from all over the country.

So when I looked at the cause of this problem we have right now, it is about finances, strictly about finances. Can we continue to pay? I also looked at the way I felt Democrats truly looked at this. They said: Fine, we will agree to the $986 billion number--$986 billion. That was the Republicans' request, to keep that spending level. The Democrats would have loved to have $1.058 trillion. They reduced it $90 billion. To me, that was a good compromise. We can live with that $986 billion number. We have to tighten our belts a little bit, but we are good at that in West Virginia. And we did it.

Then, all of a sudden, the Affordable Care Act--or ObamaCare, as people have referred to it--becomes the issue. There are a lot of things in that piece of legislation that I do not agree with. I do not know how I would have voted if I had been here. I would have tried to make what I would have thought were constructive changes. But do you know what. It is the law. And I said: I am in a mode that I would call for a reform, repair, and then repeal parts of it we cannot fix. I do not know that yet. We have to get in there and do it.

I am probably part of the problem and caused some of this because I made a statement. We were talking to some people, and they asked me: What do you think is going to happen?

I said: Well, for my colleagues and friends on the other side of the aisle--my Republican friends--I would think they would look, and if they really want to talk about health care, can it be extended for 1 year before it takes effect as the law.

I did not mean to postpone it. I did not mean to stop and don't start it until next year. I meant the fines and the penalties.

Think about this. I am very much opposed to the individual mandate, but I understand it is part of the process. But I would have thought, why wouldn't we have a transition year?

So the law took effect as of yesterday. It has. We have people trying to find the best opportunity they have. In my little State, we do not have a lot of options, so I want to make sure the people who have good insurance are somehow able to keep that. There has to be a way we can work through that. I want to make sure the people who have no insurance and have never been able to buy insurance can now be able to afford it. I want to make sure of that. I want to make sure people who had a preexisting condition or had a child who was born with a condition are able to keep the insurance they now have that they could not have before. I want to make sure that basically the senior citizens in West Virginia, who basically are filling the doughnut hole out of their pockets, which they cannot afford, are taken care of. They can go get an exam on an annual basis and not have to pay a copayment from their Medicare. Those are all good things, and I know my good friends on the Republican side feel the same way about some of this. Why would you want to throw the baby out with the bathwater when all you have to do is maybe change the water every now and then and we have a little clean water we can bathe the baby in again? These are sensible solutions, like how I was raised, looking at how do you fix it?

I can assure you this: I have never fixed a problem by calling somebody else a name. I have never chastised somebody for their beliefs. I really have not. I have tried to think, OK, if I were in their shoes, how could we fix this?

When I was Governor, I used to sit down with people on the opposite side and think, OK, in the profession we are in--public service--how do I allow them to go home to save face? How do I allow them to have some comfort that they are going to be able to bring constructive ideas to the table that basically make it better? I have always thought of that.

So you are not going to hear me saying that we are right and they are wrong. In this case here, I will say: Please, don't have this self- inflicted pain on the people of my State of West Virginia or your State or this country. There could be a time when we might not be able to stop what might be happening. The market forces might push us in a direction that we cannot control. This is something we can control, and all we are asking for--please, let government continue. If you want to talk about a big, grand plan, which I hope we do, which is fixing the financial condition, getting our financial house in order, I have been a big supporter of Bowles-Simpson. It is the only bipartisan package that has been on the table since I have been here. There are an awful lot of things of which people say: Well, I don't like this, I don't like that. None of them have said it is not what needs to be done. It is a three-pronged approach. That is the big fix we have talked about. But we are not talking about any of that. We are talking about things we do not like. We are talking about people we do not like. We are calling people names. And it just does not fix things. It does not make it right. So you will hear me continue to talk about the grand bargain. This is the time, between now and the debt ceiling.

I will say this about the debt ceiling: Raising the debt does not fix the debt. We need to have a path to fix it. We should not be going through this political fight every 3, 6 months. This is the fifth time I have been in a debt ceiling debate. How many times have we voted on the so-called ObamaCare? It is ridiculous to continue to fight the same fight over and over.

I hope we are in a reform or repair, and then repeal when you cannot fix it. When you have given it your all for the betterment of your country and it is just not fixable or doable, then you change. We have not gotten there yet. We have all naysayers and people basically who just do not want change. I have too many people who need the services of government. I have too many people who depend on it--not that I believe people should be dependent. I hope people would be independent. But government is so intertwined in all of our lives, and to just say you want to stop it all is wrong.

So I would ask my dear friends and my colleagues on the Republican side to please think about a continuing resolution. Please. We have come to the agreement on the number that you wanted of $986 billion. Health care--if you wanted to bring up the Keystone Pipeline, I am a total supporter of the Keystone Pipeline for energy independence. I am an ``all energy'' person--use whatever we have. It is not the place for it. As much as I would like to see it, it is not the place for me to draw the line to inflict so much pain on so many Americans, so many West Virginians, just because of one issue I like or do not like. There is a time for that. There will be a time for this health

care bill, ObamaCare. It will either succeed or fail on its own. But we ought to try to make it better if we can. If we cannot, then come to the conclusion we cannot, but do not shut down government because you do not think it will work--or maybe you are afraid it will work. That could be it too.

With all that being said, I say to my friends, you will never hear me say anything derogatory about you. You can always reach across the aisle to me. I am always going to sit down and talk to you. I am willing to compromise and work on any issue that betters the position we have, that betters the quality of life, that creates opportunities, that makes us the strongest and most powerful Nation on Earth. I will continue to fight for that. But I am asking you for this time, do not allow this self-inflicted pain to continue. This is not fair to my State, it is not fair to the people of West Virginia, it is not fair to the Presiding Officer's State of Wisconsin or to anybody in this great country of ours.

With that, Madam President, I say thank you for allowing me to say what has been on my mind. I am a proud American, and it is about this country first, and it is always going to be about this country first. If the United States of America does well, I will guarantee you the great State of West Virginia is going to be just great, we are going to do fine. But we have to work together and put our priorities in place.

I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the time until 7 p.m. be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to enter into a colloquy with my dear friend Senator

Heitkamp of North Dakota so we can talk about the serious situation we have before us.

I thank the Chair.

(The remarks of Mr. Manchin and Ms. Heitkamp pertaining to the introduction of S.J. Res. 22 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

I thank the Senator and note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, approximately 9 days ago most of us were on call and being briefed by the administration on what was evolving and how desperate and dire the situation was. At the time it was being proposed as an imminent strike that had to be done for the defense of this Nation, and we listened to that.

Immediately after that conversation we had with many Senators and Secretary Kerry, my dear friend Senator Heitkamp called me and said: I would hope we have another option. We were looking for an option. The only thing we had before us was a vote to either support an imminent strike or not support a strike. It has been proposed if we don't show the strength of this great country of ours that it could weaken our standing in the world and our intentions might not be taken seriously the next time and also weaken the Presidency, which none of us want to do, no matter what side of the fence you might be on.

So we kept looking and talking. I canceled all my appointments in West

Virginia and Senator Heitkamp did the same in North Dakota and we came back as soon as possible. We attended every meeting, every briefing. I went to my Armed Services Committee meeting and also the Foreign Relations Committee meeting to hear the testimony from all of the people in the administration who were making their case.

At the end of the day, it still did not rise to the level, in my mind and I think in the mind of Senator Heitkamp as well, that we were at a point to where it would be of imminent danger to the United States. So with that, we brought all the people together, and Senator Heitkamp-- and I want her to chime in here--and myself kept pushing and pushing the people who had the knowledge and who had been down that road before--military leaders, past and present, diplomats, and also think tanks--and we finally came up with something that could be done.

I would defer to Senator Heitkamp on this, but we kept saying if the problem is chemical weapons, why haven't we addressed that? All we knew was there was an imminent strike. We were not going to be able to take out, nor did we intend to take out or change the regime. We could not put boots on the ground, nor did we have a desire--nobody had a desire--for our military men and women to go back in. So we couldn't secure those weapons.

Senator Heitkamp might want to say how we came to the position we came to and why we felt it was so important.

I sure do. First of all, we all applaud President Obama for bringing it to Congress. We think this is the right place for these types of decisions, with the consequences we are facing and what the repercussions could be. But we have come to a conclusion that any type of imminent strike and the reaction from that would be greater than inaction right now. But doing nothing is unacceptable, which is how we came to this.

Basically, we call this the Chemical Weapons Control Act. The thing about the Chemical Weapons Convention, we felt--and we have heard from diplomats on this--this was the proper course. It was basically giving the Asad regime 45 days. Our resolution is very straightforward. The Asad regime has 45 days to sign and comply, and that means to identify, to secure, and to start eliminating and destroying. He cannot use, nor can he continue to produce, these types of weapons.

Also, in that 45-day period, we have asked the administration and the President to lay forth a plan for Congress to evaluate what Syria would look like at the end. If they do not sign, what are we to do and how would Syria look? If they do sign and that still hasn't brought any peace and an end to a civil war, that needs to be looked at also.

We have all heard from our constituents. In talking to our colleagues we have even heard a lot more. We have had some who have said: Listen, we don't want a strike under any circumstances. No way on God's green Earth do we believe a strike will produce anything but repercussions.

I have said this, and the Senator and I have talked about this: If you believe that money or military might would change the course and direction of that part of the world, which we define as the Middle East or North Africa, then we would have had success by now. We have spent 12 years--the longest war in our history--and we have spent over $1.6 trillion and the results have not been beneficial whatsoever and we have lost thousands of lives.

I have also said being a superpower means more than showing the rest of the world we have the super might to use whenever we feel it is necessary. Being a superpower comes with not only having the super military power, it comes with having the super negotiation ability, the super diplomacy, the super patience, and the super humanitarian aid, as needed. We have the ability to do all of that.

That is what we have asked for. Now we are seeing an evolving situation--not only in 24 hours, but with every 24 minutes it seems like something is changing. The Russians have said they would ask Asad's regime in Syria to sign or be involved. Syria says they have accepted. We have heard now they have said they will comply and join the CWC. These are the changes we have to continue to try to bring to fruition.

On that, we are very happy. I know the Senator and I have spoken about that--and our colleagues are looking at different options--that we didn't have different options as of Monday morning. There were no options. It was are you going to vote to strike or not vote to strike. I am pleased we are moving and I think cooler heads will prevail.

I believe the President is open to making sure the players are sincere and real, meaning what they are saying. I believe now that they have announced to the entire world, the international world, that we will sign and be honest brokers, let's put them on the spot and see if they will sign that and be part of this and become part of the 21st century, if you will.

I have and I will continue to work with my colleague. I think the Geneva Protocol of 1925 prohibits the use of chemical and biological weapons in conflict, but it did not go far enough. We know that. Syria signed the Geneva Protocol in December of 1969. They signed that one, but then they would not and have not been a signatory of the Chemical Weapons Convention of 1993. That is what we are speaking of. That one is the modern-day equivalent of the Geneva Protocol. The international community began negotiating

the CWC in 1980 to close the loopholes of the Geneva Protocol. The CWC opened for signature in 1963 and after the required 65 ratifications were received, entered into force in 1997. We have, I think, five countries that have not signed. Most countries, 191, have signed. That is what we are asking for them to comply with, which we think is the best way, because there is an implementation organization which oversees it and it is not the United States or Russia or not any other country taking the lead but basically it is a way to have the entire international community come back into play.

I am so proud to be working on this with the Senator. Our staffs have worked well together. They are most competent and they have done a yeoman job. The resolution we have come with basically is the only one out there, an option today that basically controls the chemical weapons. It actually controls these chemical weapons from ever being used on another human being--which we all deplore. With that, maybe we can help, now, move on to trying to help resolve this civil war. The carnage is unbelievable.

They said there were 99,000 people killed in Syria with conventional weapons and 1,000 with chemicals. To me, every person is a life we could save, we ought to try to save. With that being said, we have to give them a chance to come be involved, and that is what we have done.

At this time last week we never thought we would have been here. This time 2 days ago we would not have thought we could be here. But we are moving in the right direction.

Let me make it clear what the resolution the Senator and our staffs have worked on does. The section, our title, is this, basically:

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the

United States of America in Congress assembled,

The section of our coining, this section of our title

. . . may be cited as the ``Chemical Weapons Control and

Accountability Resolution of 2013.''

Basically exactly what it says. The statement of policy is this:

It is the policy of the United States that

(1) the Government of Syria must become a signatory to the

Chemical Weapons Convention and take concrete steps to comply

with the terms and conditions of the Convention;

(2) the failure by the government of Bashar al-Assad to

sign and comply with the Convention clearly demonstrates a

willful disregard of international norms on the use of

chemical weapons; and

(3) if the Government of Syria does not sign and comply

with the convention within 45 days after the date of the

enactment of this resolution, all elements of national power

will be considered by the United States Government.

That reaffirms the war powers the President has. I know there are some who do not believe that is constitutional or do not believe it is law, but we have checked it and researched it, and it is. We reconfirm that. It does not say that imminent strikes will happen at the end of 45 days. It will be up to the President to determine whether negotiations are moving in the right direction, if all players are being sincere in coming on board, but it gives him the chance to be the President, to do whatever he is elected to do. Whomever he or she may be, you want the President's office to be able to exercise the powers they have by law. That is what we have done here.

Everybody has a different approach. Some may say 45 days or you don't need that. Fine. We are open to all that. We have said that before. But the experts who helped us put this together put in timetables they believed were reasonable and believed they were attainable.

We have heard our colleagues and had some good conversations with our colleagues. We have had other people saying for real, all you are doing is trying to stall.

I said no. I don't believe anyone really questions the might of the government. I don't think it weakens the U.S. Government, to show super restraint, knowing the volatility of that part of the world.

Also, past experience in my State of West Virginia--and I know in the great State of North Dakota--we know when you try something and put in so much effort trying to change that part of the world and have not had the success, nowhere near, and spent $1.6 trillion and the sacrifice of Americans--maybe that is not something we should repeat. We all know that. We get no support basically from our constituents.

Those of us who are privy to all these high-powered meetings, if you will, have not been convinced that there will be change. With that being said, I say to my friends, if you believe anyone would discount the might of this Nation? I don't think so. The resolve of us to protect our country and our Americans? I don't think so. Or to support our allies, our true friends and allies? I don't think so.

But you know, back home we have a saying: Sometimes you don't have a dog in the fight. We can't really find a friend in that fight. That is the problem. That is the hard sell. With that being said--I have said this before--the Arab League, they should step forward. That is in their backyard. We should give all the support. We have humanitarian aid. We will give all the support we possibly can, but they need to take the lead. It cannot always be the Americans being the policemen of the world and everyone saying: OK, call 911, which goes right to Washington. They will take care of it.

I discount it when they start saying it doesn't show your strength, we might not have that strength of reputation or it might weaken the President. No, I don't think so. Not at all.

I believe that as the world watches what is unfolding now, they are watching a superpower make a decision. We are using super restraint. We are using super compassion, if you will. But we are super resolved and we have the super might to do what we need to do. I don't think anyone should take that lightly.

I do not think anyone would take for granted that we will not defend this country and every citizen of this country with everything we have and try to spread humanity, if you will, all over the world. But it takes more than us as we move outside the borders of the United States of America. We need an international community working with us. We need some of them stepping to the plate; not just the rhetoric that we hear but basic stuff. We need the United Nations to be functioning again, to have a functioning role and have a strong support role and be able to step to the plate and do it in a fashion that protects the civilized world. Those are the things we have asked for.

I think this gives it a chance. Today we have seen a breakthrough, if President Asad has said: I will sign and I will be a member and I will comply and I will have inspectors come in and I will make sure these weapons are secure and we will start destroying them, taking them off the shelf. Russia can play a part in that. They can pull their ships up, load them up, take them out, take them to a secured area. That is getting them out of that part of the world, and then hopefully we can get people working together to stop the war we have, to stop the carnage, too.

It starts here. People are looking to the United States and I think they have been looking for the leadership we have been able to give, not just in the military and not just in financial, but in some good, solid, concrete decisions that bring this suffering that is going on in Syria to an end.

I am very proud to work with the Senator from North Dakota on this issue. We are asking all of our colleagues to be involved in any way, shape, or form. We will work with them. If there is anyone who has ideas that can make this better and an even more perfect document, then we are all for that. I know the Senator from North Dakota feels that way, and I know her team feels that way also.

I thank Senator Heitkamp for the work she has done and also the friend she has been. I believe we are close to getting this in the right direction where cooler heads prevail, and I think the world will be safer.

I don't believe military action is going to correct what is going on with Syria. It is going to be diplomacy and democracy that will hopefully work there. We are trying to put that forward first. More people are coming on board, and we appreciate that. We thank all of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle.

This is not a partisan issue. It truly has not been a partisan issue, and it won't be a partisan issue. This is an American issue that involves all of us, and it is a world issue. The world has great interest, but they also have to have participation.

Mr. President, approximately 9 days ago most of us were on call and being briefed by the administration on what was evolving and how desperate and dire the situation was. At the time it was being proposed as an imminent strike that had to be done for the defense of this Nation, and we listened to that.

Immediately after that conversation we had with many Senators and Secretary Kerry, my dear friend Senator Heitkamp called me and said: I would hope we have another option. We were looking for an option. The only thing we had before us was a vote to either support an imminent strike or not support a strike. It has been proposed if we don't show the strength of this great country of ours that it could weaken our standing in the world and our intentions might not be taken seriously the next time and also weaken the Presidency, which none of us want to do, no matter what side of the fence you might be on.

So we kept looking and talking. I canceled all my appointments in West

Virginia and Senator Heitkamp did the same in North Dakota and we came back as soon as possible. We attended every meeting, every briefing. I went to my Armed Services Committee meeting and also the Foreign Relations Committee meeting to hear the testimony from all of the people in the administration who were making their case.

At the end of the day, it still did not rise to the level, in my mind and I think in the mind of Senator Heitkamp as well, that we were at a point to where it would be of imminent danger to the United States. So with that, we brought all the people together, and Senator Heitkamp-- and I want her to chime in here--and myself kept pushing and pushing the people who had the knowledge and who had been down that road before--military leaders, past and present, diplomats, and also think tanks--and we finally came up with something that could be done.

I would defer to Senator Heitkamp on this, but we kept saying if the problem is chemical weapons, why haven't we addressed that? All we knew was there was an imminent strike. We were not going to be able to take out, nor did we intend to take out or change the regime. We could not put boots on the ground, nor did we have a desire--nobody had a desire--for our military men and women to go back in. So we couldn't secure those weapons.

Senator Heitkamp might want to say how we came to the position we came to and why we felt it was so important.

I sure do. First of all, we all applaud President Obama for bringing it to Congress. We think this is the right place for these types of decisions, with the consequences we are facing and what the repercussions could be. But we have come to a conclusion that any type of imminent strike and the reaction from that would be greater than inaction right now. But doing nothing is unacceptable, which is how we came to this.

Basically, we call this the Chemical Weapons Control Act. The thing about the Chemical Weapons Convention, we felt--and we have heard from diplomats on this--this was the proper course. It was basically giving the Asad regime 45 days. Our resolution is very straightforward. The Asad regime has 45 days to sign and comply, and that means to identify, to secure, and to start eliminating and destroying. He cannot use, nor can he continue to produce, these types of weapons.

Also, in that 45-day period, we have asked the administration and the President to lay forth a plan for Congress to evaluate what Syria would look like at the end. If they do not sign, what are we to do and how would Syria look? If they do sign and that still hasn't brought any peace and an end to a civil war, that needs to be looked at also.

We have all heard from our constituents. In talking to our colleagues we have even heard a lot more. We have had some who have said: Listen, we don't want a strike under any circumstances. No way on God's green Earth do we believe a strike will produce anything but repercussions.

I have said this, and the Senator and I have talked about this: If you believe that money or military might would change the course and direction of that part of the world, which we define as the Middle East or North Africa, then we would have had success by now. We have spent 12 years--the longest war in our history--and we have spent over $1.6 trillion and the results have not been beneficial whatsoever and we have lost thousands of lives.

I have also said being a superpower means more than showing the rest of the world we have the super might to use whenever we feel it is necessary. Being a superpower comes with not only having the super military power, it comes with having the super negotiation ability, the super diplomacy, the super patience, and the super humanitarian aid, as needed. We have the ability to do all of that.

That is what we have asked for. Now we are seeing an evolving situation--not only in 24 hours, but with every 24 minutes it seems like something is changing. The Russians have said they would ask Asad's regime in Syria to sign or be involved. Syria says they have accepted. We have heard now they have said they will comply and join the CWC. These are the changes we have to continue to try to bring to fruition.

On that, we are very happy. I know the Senator and I have spoken about that--and our colleagues are looking at different options--that we didn't have different options as of Monday morning. There were no options. It was are you going to vote to strike or not vote to strike. I am pleased we are moving and I think cooler heads will prevail.

I believe the President is open to making sure the players are sincere and real, meaning what they are saying. I believe now that they have announced to the entire world, the international world, that we will sign and be honest brokers, let's put them on the spot and see if they will sign that and be part of this and become part of the 21st century, if you will.

I have and I will continue to work with my colleague. I think the Geneva Protocol of 1925 prohibits the use of chemical and biological weapons in conflict, but it did not go far enough. We know that. Syria signed the Geneva Protocol in December of 1969. They signed that one, but then they would not and have not been a signatory of the Chemical Weapons Convention of 1993. That is what we are speaking of. That one is the modern-day equivalent of the Geneva Protocol. The international community began negotiating

the CWC in 1980 to close the loopholes of the Geneva Protocol. The CWC opened for signature in 1963 and after the required 65 ratifications were received, entered into force in 1997. We have, I think, five countries that have not signed. Most countries, 191, have signed. That is what we are asking for them to comply with, which we think is the best way, because there is an implementation organization which oversees it and it is not the United States or Russia or not any other country taking the lead but basically it is a way to have the entire international community come back into play.

I am so proud to be working on this with the Senator. Our staffs have worked well together. They are most competent and they have done a yeoman job. The resolution we have come with basically is the only one out there, an option today that basically controls the chemical weapons. It actually controls these chemical weapons from ever being used on another human being--which we all deplore. With that, maybe we can help, now, move on to trying to help resolve this civil war. The carnage is unbelievable.

They said there were 99,000 people killed in Syria with conventional weapons and 1,000 with chemicals. To me, every person is a life we could save, we ought to try to save. With that being said, we have to give them a chance to come be involved, and that is what we have done.

At this time last week we never thought we would have been here. This time 2 days ago we would not have thought we could be here. But we are moving in the right direction.

Let me make it clear what the resolution the Senator and our staffs have worked on does. The section, our title, is this, basically:

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the

United States of America in Congress assembled,

The section of our coining, this section of our title

. . . may be cited as the ``Chemical Weapons Control and

Accountability Resolution of 2013.''

Basically exactly what it says. The statement of policy is this:

It is the policy of the United States that

(1) the Government of Syria must become a signatory to the

Chemical Weapons Convention and take concrete steps to comply

with the terms and conditions of the Convention;

(2) the failure by the government of Bashar al-Assad to

sign and comply with the Convention clearly demonstrates a

willful disregard of international norms on the use of

chemical weapons; and

(3) if the Government of Syria does not sign and comply

with the convention within 45 days after the date of the

enactment of this resolution, all elements of national power

will be considered by the United States Government.

That reaffirms the war powers the President has. I know there are some who do not believe that is constitutional or do not believe it is law, but we have checked it and researched it, and it is. We reconfirm that. It does not say that imminent strikes will happen at the end of 45 days. It will be up to the President to determine whether negotiations are moving in the right direction, if all players are being sincere in coming on board, but it gives him the chance to be the President, to do whatever he is elected to do. Whomever he or she may be, you want the President's office to be able to exercise the powers they have by law. That is what we have done here.

Everybody has a different approach. Some may say 45 days or you don't need that. Fine. We are open to all that. We have said that before. But the experts who helped us put this together put in timetables they believed were reasonable and believed they were attainable.

We have heard our colleagues and had some good conversations with our colleagues. We have had other people saying for real, all you are doing is trying to stall.

I said no. I don't believe anyone really questions the might of the government. I don't think it weakens the U.S. Government, to show super restraint, knowing the volatility of that part of the world.

Also, past experience in my State of West Virginia--and I know in the great State of North Dakota--we know when you try something and put in so much effort trying to change that part of the world and have not had the success, nowhere near, and spent $1.6 trillion and the sacrifice of Americans--maybe that is not something we should repeat. We all know that. We get no support basically from our constituents.

Those of us who are privy to all these high-powered meetings, if you will, have not been convinced that there will be change. With that being said, I say to my friends, if you believe anyone would discount the might of this Nation? I don't think so. The resolve of us to protect our country and our Americans? I don't think so. Or to support our allies, our true friends and allies? I don't think so.

But you know, back home we have a saying: Sometimes you don't have a dog in the fight. We can't really find a friend in that fight. That is the problem. That is the hard sell. With that being said--I have said this before--the Arab League, they should step forward. That is in their backyard. We should give all the support. We have humanitarian aid. We will give all the support we possibly can, but they need to take the lead. It cannot always be the Americans being the policemen of the world and everyone saying: OK, call 911, which goes right to Washington. They will take care of it.

I discount it when they start saying it doesn't show your strength, we might not have that strength of reputation or it might weaken the President. No, I don't think so. Not at all.

I believe that as the world watches what is unfolding now, they are watching a superpower make a decision. We are using super restraint. We are using super compassion, if you will. But we are super resolved and we have the super might to do what we need to do. I don't think anyone should take that lightly.

I do not think anyone would take for granted that we will not defend this country and every citizen of this country with everything we have and try to spread humanity, if you will, all over the world. But it takes more than us as we move outside the borders of the United States of America. We need an international community working with us. We need some of them stepping to the plate; not just the rhetoric that we hear but basic stuff. We need the United Nations to be functioning again, to have a functioning role and have a strong support role and be able to step to the plate and do it in a fashion that protects the civilized world. Those are the things we have asked for.

I think this gives it a chance. Today we have seen a breakthrough, if President Asad has said: I will sign and I will be a member and I will comply and I will have inspectors come in and I will make sure these weapons are secure and we will start destroying them, taking them off the shelf. Russia can play a part in that. They can pull their ships up, load them up, take them out, take them to a secured area. That is getting them out of that part of the world, and then hopefully we can get people working together to stop the war we have, to stop the carnage, too.

It starts here. People are looking to the United States and I think they have been looking for the leadership we have been able to give, not just in the military and not just in financial, but in some good, solid, concrete decisions that bring this suffering that is going on in Syria to an end.

I am very proud to work with the Senator from North Dakota on this issue. We are asking all of our colleagues to be involved in any way, shape, or form. We will work with them. If there is anyone who has ideas that can make this better and an even more perfect document, then we are all for that. I know the Senator from North Dakota feels that way, and I know her team feels that way also.

I thank Senator Heitkamp for the work she has done and also the friend she has been. I believe we are close to getting this in the right direction where cooler heads prevail, and I think the world will be safer.

I don't believe military action is going to correct what is going on with Syria. It is going to be diplomacy and democracy that will hopefully work there. We are trying to put that forward first. More people are coming on board, and we appreciate that. We thank all of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle.

This is not a partisan issue. It truly has not been a partisan issue, and it won't be a partisan issue. This is an American issue that involves all of us, and it is a world issue. The world has great interest, but they also have to have participation.

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

Madam President, as we know, Congress has trouble with deadlines. That is why we always seem to be missing them. When we have trouble finding a permanent solution, we seem to kick the can down the road, hoping to find a solution later.

We are here today trying to fix the problem we have with the government student loan programs because we kicked the can down the road last year, and if we do not stop and start fixing things, we will continue to do it. That breeds a lot of uncertainty into the minds of the families and the children who are trying to go on and better themselves. The result was that on July 1 rates on government- subsidized undergraduate Stafford loans doubled to 6.8 percent. That is a fact. That is what we know we are dealing with, and we are trying to reverse that.

Not surprisingly, it set off alarms. My goodness, we all got excited about this. What are we going to do? We had a year to do it, but we didn't do anything; we just extended it--3.4 percent and only for the Stafford subsidized loans and nothing for other loans people were taking. When you consider that 11 million students who are trying to better themselves are borrowing money every year, we were only talking about 1 million. That was all we were trying to help. We forgot about everything else.

It is time to fix it today with a ``yes'' vote on the bipartisan compromise we worked out. It is really tripartisan--Democrat, Republican and Independent. That is pretty special around here, if you can get everybody agreeing and moving in the right direction.

Let me explain what the bill does and what this bipartisan compromise will do. We can lower the rate for all undergraduates--all of them-- from 6.8 percent, which is where it is right now, to 3.8 percent. So we understand, that

means a savings of $2,000 in interest for the average freshman student who starts college this year. Remember, doing nothing and voting against the long-term fix means that the 11 million students who will be borrowing money for this school year will pay a higher rate than they have to.

Let's look at the amount of people we are talking about, and the money. This is what we are actually talking about.

The legislation, the bipartisan plan, has been scored and we know this first year saves $8.1 billion that students will not have to pay in interest. That we know. For the first 4 years of this plan, 2013 through 2016, it is $31.8 billion. By doing nothing, that is what we are leaving. We are making the students pay that much more by doing nothing. Anything else we do other than the bipartisan, this is the type of money they will be paying in higher interest rates and more obligations on the families.

All of us understand the importance of education. It is what has made America the land of opportunity. All of us want to help students go as far as they can with their talent, as far as their talent is going to take them. That is what brought so many of us together to come up with the tripartisan fix, if you will, for the student loan program.

We all understand that the student loan rates are only one piece to the issue of making college more accessible and more affordable for all Americans who want to further their education. We will get to the other pieces when we debate the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, on which Senator Harkin has been working so hard. I truly look forward to having those discussions, but today we have to know what we are dealing with. We are dealing today with something that has an immediate impact on the pocketbook of student borrowers and their families-- people who need to borrow money to go to school. That is what is in front of us. We talked all over and around it. We are talking about accounting principles. We are talking about everything that needs to be looked at. But it is not going to change what we are dealing with today because this bipartisan agreement truly has savings that families need.

As I said, it is probably more accurate to call our proposal tripartisan, and I am proud to do that with all of us working together. If you think bipartisanship is hard work and hard to get around here, tripartisanship is like hitting the trifecta; that is the megabucks. We are doing something really right when we can get all three sides going in the same direction.

This legislation is a long-term fix that is fair, it is equitable, and it is fiscally responsible. We all agreed on a set of priorities when we began our negotiations--that is everybody: Democrats, Republicans, my colleagues on my side of the aisle, the Democratic side, who have other proposals. What we all agreed on is that the interest rate should be as low as humanly possible. We also agreed that there should be strong front-end caps on interest rates to protect student borrowers in high interest rate environments so that it does not just run wild with them. It has a cap of 8.25 percent, which has been historic for some time. We kept that cap.

We ensured that the government did not profit or lose money on the loans. I think that was a big thing, that we all came to agreement. Some of the bills we had, had anywhere up to $16 billion of profit built into them. That money was going to go to debt reduction. We said basically that every penny we can reduce in the interest, that money should go right back toward education for the student, and we have done that.

I admit there is no legislation that is perfect. I have been around this process for many years, and I have never voted on a perfect piece of legislation. But I tried to get the best we possibly could that made a difference and made sure we can get it passed, and we have that today. It is a good piece of legislation. Anything else that we think needs to be fixed that we have talked about, we can do that when we do the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act under Chairman Harkin, which will be looking at everything.

Here is how good this bipartisan--tripartisan--compromise is. The undergraduate Stafford loans, both subsidized and unsubsidized, are based around the 10-year T-bill plus 2.05 percent, which would yield a 3.86-percent rate for this year. The current rate is 6.8 percent; now we are at 3.8 percent.

Let me show another chart. Nearly 8 out of 10 undergraduate borrowers will have both sub and un-sub loans, while only 1 out of 10 will have subsidized loans. That is how many students will have just the subsidized loans. That is what we thought we were fixing when we froze it at 3.4--that is all the people we helped. I don't think a lot of us understood. Some people thought it helped everybody, and it did not. Only subsidized is this, the Stafford subsidized. Those who borrow only unsubsidized is this. But if you look at those who needed both, this is what we are talking about--6.5 million more students we are helping and serving through this bipartisan--tripartisan--piece of legislation, the compromise.

This is what we worked to do. How could we help? You want to help the middle class? This is where the middle class is. This is where the people are who need to have the assistance, this is where they come in, and I think we have done a very good job at doing that.

We still have the PLUS loans. We have the graduate unsubsidized loans. Right now the graduate unsubsidized Stafford loans are paying 6.8 percent. Under our legislation they will be paying 5.4 percent. If you look at the PLUS loans today, the PLUS loan current rate is 7.9 percent. Under our bill it is 6.4.

One hundred percent--every student--11 million of them who are borrowing money--will be benefited by the bipartisan agreement. Everybody benefits. That is what we tried to do.

Our plan keeps in place the IBR, which is the income-based repayment plan.

Let's say you graduate after years and you borrowed a lot of money. You have a lot of debt. You get a job that pays $40,000, and you have two kids now. We put in a protection that basically says they can only charge you--you only have to pay 10 percent of your disposable income. With a $40,000 income, with two children, that can be as low as $142 a month. Now, $142 a month--let's say that with the economy, the job you have that is where your heart and desires are--after 20 years it is completely forgiven. After 20 years, you made a good effort and maybe 50 percent of your loan is still owed. The taxpayers are picking up that. When people are saying that we are not helping, that we should be subsidizing higher education, we are doing that and I think with tremendous help.

The Congressional Budget Office said our bipartisan proposal will save the government $715 billion over 10 years with $1.4 trillion of money that will be borrowed, and $700 million--that is over 10 years, and that is $70 million a year. That is about as close as they are able to come. What that really amounts to--let me give it to you this way. It might be better. Over the 10 years, $715 million means that the Federal Government--if someone says: Oh, but they are making a profit, over 10 years the Federal Government will make $2.76 on each loan. If we can get it to zero, we will take it to zero. We don't make a penny. That is about as close as we can get working with the numbers we have.

We should not deny students starting college this fall $2,000 in savings for the sake of a principle. You say we are making $2.76 over 10 years, so they should not have the $2,000 in savings? It doesn't make sense to me.

Chart No. 3. This indicates that the average freshman in 2013 who graduates in 4 years will save over $2,000 on our plan--$22,000 versus current law, $24,000. In the years ahead, the interest rates on newly issued Federal student loans will be tied to the U.S. Treasury 10-year borrowing rates plus add-ons to offset costs associated with defaults, collections, deferments, forgiveness, and delinquencies.

What we are talking about is--what they are saying is that rates are going to go up. CBO projects this. They projected it before. If everything that you are hearing--and they say that rates will go up; that is where the difference of about $500 comes in. That is the difference. That is in the worst-case scenario that the $500 would come in. Setting the rates to the market borrowing

costs is fair, and it is equitable and sustainable as long as we have strong borrower protections, and it is fiscally responsible.

This way, Washington doesn't wind up profiting from students or losing money on them. Depending on the methods of accounting that you use--you heard how much money we are making on this and that. Let me explain a little bit about the accounting procedure. The student loan program either generates $184 billion, if you used the Federal Credit Reform Act--and I will say the Federal Credit Reform Act has been the way the CBO has scored for the last 23 years. For 23 years that is the way it has been done. If you use fair value accounting, which some have basically supported and want us to change to--even CBO has pointed toward that--there would be a $95 billion loss. There is a $280 billion swing between what some people say we are making in excess profit; others say we will be losing money, it is not paying for itself, and we are still subsidizing at the $95 billion rate.

That is a tremendous swing. We are not going to fix that. Senator Harkin will look at all of this, and we will be able to address all of this in the comprehensive bill. We should all agree it is simply not fair to make a profit on the backs of students, and we agree on that, and that is why no matter what happens in the market in the long-term, the Senate compromise--and we fought hard for this--on the front end, the Senate compromise includes an interest rate cap of 8.25 percent. Much of this is important because there will be approximately $140 billion in new loans issued every year, which means $1.4 trillion in loans will be issued over the next 10 years.

In just a few short weeks students will be returning to school, and they will have plenty to worry about: what books to buy, where their classes are, how to haul all their stuff to all the rooms, and much more.

There has been so much discussion and argument. We will be voting on amendments that are based on what will happen after 4 years.

This chart shows what the CBO said the interest rates would be. In 2003, we start at around 4 percent. They felt they would go up to 5.8, to 5.9 percent, and level off for the past decade, which is from 2003 to 2013. This is actually what happened. If we locked into some of the amendments some of my colleagues, whom I respect, are telling us to lock into, no one would ever be able to take advantage of these historic lows. We are able to adjust that based on the market rate rather than just a fixed rate.

These are the things we don't know, but we know we are going to score $31 billion in savings in the first 4 years. We do know that. This is how far they have been off before, so there is no science in this. If anyone thinks this is the gospel, it is not.

With a ``yes'' vote on our legislation today, there is one less thing students and their families will have to worry about: what the interest rate will be this year and how it will be calculated for years to come. We all came here to help our constituents do what we believe is right. We all agree that ensuring college remains affordable and accessible for this generation and future generations of Americans is the right thing to do. There simply is no better investment we can make than the education of our children and grandchildren.

We will count on today's students to be the driving force of American creativity and innovation in the years ahead. Some bedrock values define America, and one of them is pretty fundamental: We believe in opportunity. We believe everyone who wants to work hard and play by the rules should have a shot to succeed. To make good on that American promise--the promise of the American dream--we must do all we can to ensure that students can have an affordable education.

With a vote today on this bipartisan--more appropriately a tripartisan--agreement to lower the interest rates on all student loans, we will take a large step in the right direction. That is why I urge all of my colleagues to support this bipartisan, tripartisan, agreed-upon legislation that helps students in the future.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, we can fix our student loan program with a ``yes'' vote on the bipartisan legislation to lower interest rates for all student borrowers. The bipartisan Student Loan Certainty Act is a long-term fix that is fair, equitable, financially sustainable, and fiscally responsible.

This compromise will save students $8 billion in interest this school year which translates to $31 billion in savings over the next 4 years. That means a savings of $2,000 in interest for the average freshman student who starts college this year. A ``no'' vote will prevent our students from realizing this savings.

There is simply no better investment we can make than the education of our children and grandchildren. I urge my colleagues to make that investment and vote to support this long-term bipartisan fix.

First of all, I respect my colleague, and we just have a difference of opinion, but we are still going to work together on everything we possibly can to make it better.

It is my understanding that we will be able to adopt the amendment by a voice vote since we will be having a rollcall vote on passage of the bill as amended with this language.

I ask unanimous consent to extinguish the previous order requiring a 60-vote threshold for this amendment.

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

Madam President, upon the completion of my remarks, I ask unanimous consent my colleagues, Senator Blumenthal from Connecticut and Senator Brown from Ohio, be recognized to speak after me.

Madam President, we are talking about student loans. The thing I have found out working this in the amount of time we have been working it is we are all in the same position. We all want to help our students attain higher education, to be productive citizens, to live a better quality of life. We all know that is the most important thing we can do, and we are trying the best we possibly can to come up with a solution.

We have what we call a bipartisan bill that we have all worked on. We have everyone's input. I respect everyone's position, and we are going to come to a comprehensive bill. I think under Senator Harkin from Iowa we will have a comprehensive bill that looks at why the costs are so high and why college is so unattainable for so many families today. We have to tackle that problem.

The problem before us now is this problem: How do we help the most? What we have before us is 6.8 percent if we do nothing, 6.8 percent across. I know some people have said it is better if the 6.8 stays as it is. I disagree.

We have been working on this. Here is the difference. The 6.8 percent that is basically the cap right now--the old cap we had was 3.4 percent just for the subsidized. If we look at the portion of people who are subsidized, it is less than 1 million. If we look at the unsubsidized, it is less than 1 million. If we look at basically the subsidized and unsubsidized, that is more than 6.5 million. Our bill basically reduces that 6.8 rate down to 3.86 for this coming year. Rather than leaving it at 6.85, we have helped this many people who are basically needing this money in order to go to school. If we left it as it is, they would be paying the 6.8. If we only kept the 3.4, the subsidized loan, this is the amount of people we would be helping.

So we come as a bipartisan group saying: How can we help the most? I think most of us agree with that. As we look further down these charts, we have also asked: Under current law, how much would the average dependent undergraduate repay? Under the bipartisan bill, we can see 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, which we have scored out, it would be about at 3.86, 4.62, 5.4, and 6.2. At 6.8 across the board, if it would stay, there is a difference of savings of over $2,000. That we know.

The other argument that has been used and the point that has been made is rates might go up. Yes, rates might go up. If they do go up, how much would you pay? This is worst case scenario. The bipartisan bill, over the 10-year period, and current law if it stayed fixed over 10 years, it is a very small possibility it would go up, and that would be a $505 difference. The bottom line is we know this is a fact. This has been scored and that is where these rates are going to stay. They think that might be the worst-case scenario.

Let me show the difference of what has happened. CBO has not had the greatest track record with scoring. In 2003, we were a little over 4 percent. They projected interest rates for 10 years out. If we look at what they are projecting out for 10 years, it has about the same path as far as what actually happened under the rates. There is a big spread of money that would have been spent based on fixing the rate, let's say back in 2003, versus what was actually occurring. We are hoping we are able to continue that savings.

We understand that what we are dealing with is an awful lot of help and safeguards that are built in for young students. The best safeguard we have built in is the IBR, income-based repayment. The IBR Program allows the student who has graduated with an exorbitant amount of debt--and finds a job that basically doesn't give them the type of money they would like--a cap on how much of their disposable income can be paid toward the loan. The cap is at 15 percent now, I believe, and is going to go to 10 percent. It is also based on the amount of years. After 20 years, they are done paying. If their income did not increase appreciably, they are only going to pay the loan back based on their income of 10 percent--10 percent of their disposable income. We think that is a tremendous savings.

Most students who qualify for the subsidized loan get the Pell grant. They don't have to pay that back. As far as the subsidized loans, basically the taxpayers have invested in the students who qualify for those for the first 4 years of college, and that interest is not accrued. The interest does not accrue until they leave. Those are the things that have been built in that we think give the protections we want.

If we do nothing, we save the students about $8 billion over 2013 compared to $31 billion if we do something. If we are able to help this many students, that is equivalent to a $23 billion difference in savings, and that has been scored.

I know we have talked about the accounting procedure. I know the Presiding Officer has worked very hard on this and understands it very well. I agree with you--if we could take every

penny of profit out and make sure the students were getting the absolute lowest rate. I also know that basically market-driven rates-- if we are going to go to market, which we are in this piece of legislation--and we look at the risk factors, defaults, and all that goes into that and score that normally under a market-risk value or market value, it would be different. They have shown that market value would be $95 billion we will be losing and that the taxpayers would be subsidizing. The way we are doing it now shows a profit of $184 billion.

I am willing to work with the Presiding Officer to clear this up and get something more accurate of how we score and how we charge students. That is not what we have in front of us, and I think that is the difference. We are trying to move forward to get some certainty.

We have a lot of students in West Virginia who are deciding whether they can go to college and, if they can, where do they go and what can they afford. This gives them the certainty I think they have been looking for and hopefully the certainty they definitely need. There are more than 8\1/2\ million undergraduate students who take advantage of the Stafford Loan Program every year and over 6.5 million of these students take both the subsidized and unsubsidized loans and that is a big change.

Our colleagues on the other side, as we have been negotiating this, we talked to them about how we didn't want any profits whatsoever, and they agreed. The first bill that came from the House had $16 billion on top of what the base was at $184 billion. That has been taken out the best we possibly could to $700 million.

When you think about how we are going to run a deficit this year of $740 billion just in our annual budgeting here in Washington--and we are talking about $714 billion over a 10-year period with over $1 trillion. They said that is as close as they were able to come. Even if there is any of that, we are looking at--with this amendment Senator Harkin was able to put in--how we are able to see if that can be funneled back in and reduce the loans even further.

I think we are doing everything we possibly can. There is going to be about $1.4 trillion in loans offered over the next decade. We pretty much know that. There is $140 billion of loans every year. As a matter of fact, student loans are now the second largest indebtedness we are carrying. It is the largest burden we are carrying next to a mortgage. It just surpassed credit cards. It is unbelievable. We have to get a handle on the cost of college.

Current students and graduates are holding at $1.1 trillion in loans. The loans represent investments and will pay dividends in the form of higher earnings. The best investment a youth is going to make is an education, but if it becomes unobtainable, inaccessible, and unaffordable, it does them no good. We know that, and that is the balance we are trying to find.

The average student loan debt--every one of these young students, when they get done with college--for those who graduated in 2011 is about $26,000 that everyone is leaving college with, on average, for a debt. There is only a small percentage of borrowers who have small loan balances, but 11 percent, or roughly 4 million people, owe $50,000 or more. It is truly unbelievable.

I have heard everyone here give their reasoning for this, such as not having had good consultation, good advice or good fiscal planning, and that may be true. We can do much better to make sure the students are not taking loans that they can do without or maybe not take too much out.

I appreciate the hard work and good faith that all of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle have been showing to reach this compromise. I know it is not easy for many, and I know everybody is going to have, hopefully, their say and their vote on an amendment or two if they wish to.

At the end of the day, I believe we can walk away knowing we did better today than doing nothing at all. I believe that. I believe I, the Presiding Officer, and all of our other colleagues are going to come back and work hard whether it is the remainder of this year or next year. Basically, we are going to get a program so that these young people can find college attainable again and affordable. That is what we have all been working on.

The plan helps everyone and not just some. It lowers rates 100 percent for all students. So everything we have in our compromised bill brings down those rates. It provides a long-term fix. We don't have to kick the can down the road. We know it is there. If we can find something better between now and 4 years, 3 years, 2 years or even before this year is up, then we are willing to go back and entertain that. We don't want to see loans that were supposed to help students move forward end up moving them back.

I know what debt does; it will smother. My grandfather used to say: Indebtedness will make a coward out of you in the decisions you make when you are carrying so much debt. You will be robbing Peter to pay Paul just to survive.

We have found ourselves with the sequester, and with everything else going on, we ask how we are going to make it. When you find yourself against a proverbial rock, if you will, you will do things you would never do normally.

We are trying to find a way to move forward. It shows our students that the country believes in them and that we support their efforts to advance their education and reach for the American dream.

When we, as Democrats, Republicans, and Independents, work together and have a real debate on a real problem--and this has been debated--we can come up with commonsense solutions that truly benefit all Americans. I believe we have done that. It is refreshing for such an important issue we have. We have put politics aside in the first and foremost thing we want to do--help the students. It doesn't matter whether we are talking about a Republican, Democrat or Independent, everybody had the same purpose. I thought it was refreshing to see that. We want to lower the rates for everybody. We want to help everybody, give them some certainty and make it affordable. I look forward to working in this more bipartisan atmosphere we have right now on many more subjects. I know we can when we put our country first. The right thing to do is to put our country first.

We might be a ``D'' as a Democrat or we might be an ``R'' as a Republican, but we are always an ``A'' first, which is an American.

With that, I think the students have been served. I think we will be able to give them consistency. This piece of legislation has been worked on hard. There has been a lot of input, and Senator Harkin did a yeoman's job on bringing some of the most important factors we had to the forefront and into the bill.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to explain my vote against Gina McCarthy, which I will cast later today or the first of next week, to be Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. My fight is not with her. My fight is truly with the agency itself, the EPA, and the President who nominated her to head the regulatory agency. That fight is not going to end with the Senate's vote on Ms. McCarthy's nomination. It will not stop there. The fight will continue until the EPA stops its overregulatory rampage and until the President comes up with feasible policies that achieve real energy independence, which is what I think we all wish for.

I don't want anyone to misunderstand me. I have serious disagreements with many of Ms. McCarthy's views on energy and the environment, but I will say I met her a couple of weeks ago for the first time when she came to my office, and I found her to be earnest, friendly, pragmatic, incredibly intelligent. She is a talented scientist who has dedicated her life to public service. As a matter of fact, she served under Democrats and Republicans alike. I certainly appreciate her pragmatism, her willingness to serve her country, and her stellar bipartisan credentials, an extremely rare quality in Washington these days, as everyone knows.

In fact, it is not hard to imagine this same lady could have been nominated to be the EPA Administrator--if Mitt Romney would have won-- by another President from another party. After all, she advised him on climate change when he was Governor of Massachusetts.

My vote goes much deeper than her nomination, her views on energy and the environment or even her job performance for the last 4 years as head of air policy at the EPA. My vote against Gina McCarthy is a vote against the administration's lack of any serious attempt to develop an energy strategy for America's future, which we call an all-of-the-above policy.

We need to develop every source of American-made energy, such as coal, natural gas, nuclear, renewables, wind, solar, biomass, and biofuels. We need it all, and we are responsible to make sure we find a balance between the economy and the environment. Everyone knows it is common sense to use what we have in this country.

We need an all-of-the-above policy that includes nuclear, hydroelectric, biomass, renewables, such as wind and solar, fossil fuels, including oil, natural gas, and coal. I truly believe if we work together and focus on a commonsense approach, we can develop a strong bipartisan energy plan. Such a plan will not only break the power of foreign oil countries and speculators, it will also chart a new and promising energy future for this great Nation and increase our national security and prosperity. Think about that. It will increase our national security and the prosperity of our country.

The President often speaks about an all-of-the-above energy policy, but I have to say that his new global climate proposal amounts to a true declaration of war on one of the above. It is a true declaration of war on coal. In fact, the President plans to use the EPA to regulate the coal industry out of existence.

The coal industry in the United States of America burns 1 billion tons of coal. Eight billion tons of coal is burned in the world today. I don't believe the wind currents or the ocean currents start and stop in North America. If we stop burning every ton of coal and declare war on the economy, it will effectively destroy people's lives and jobs as well as their ability to take care of themselves. There is more coal

burned in the world now than ever before, and it is unregulated. We do burn coal better than anyone else, and we can even do it better if the government will work with us. All we are asking for is a partnership.

It doesn't matter who is elected as the Administrator of the EPA. If the President plans to use the EPA to regulate the coal industry out of existence, it doesn't matter who it is. It could be Ms. McCarthy or someone else because it is the President and the administration that will be calling all the shots. That is my fight, and it is a fight where I wish we could sit down and work together. It is a fight we cannot lose as the United States of America. There is too much at stake.

Coal is America's most abundant, most reliable, and most affordable source of energy. In fact, coal keeps the lights on and provides nearly 40 percent of the electricity in this country--40 percent. Almost half of the population of the United States of America depends on coal for their energy. It is the source of energy that built America. It made the steel that built the factories and defends our country with guns and ships. It has done it all. All we are asking for is a partnership so we can continue to keep the lights on.

With all the clean coal technologies we have--and will continue to have for decades--we can use it in a way that strikes a balance between the environment and the economy. There should always be a balance. It can't be all or nothing. It seems as if we have these extremes today where a person is either on the right or on the left, absolutely for an issue or absolutely against an issue. If there is never a compromise, how can we make it work?

There is nobody in West Virginia who wants to breathe dirty air or drink dirty water. Nobody in America wants to do that. We have a responsibility to do it better. In fact, in the last two to three decades, we have cleaned up the environment more than ever in the history of this country.

For the last 40 years, every President has talked about how to end our country's addiction to foreign oil in order to achieve energy independence. We know our dependence on oil has taken us to places in the world to fight wars that have sacrificed American men and women as well as the precious resources of this great country. We have been fighting wars we shouldn't be in because of our dependence on foreign oil.

We need to stop demonizing one energy resource--and I do mean demonizing it. When people say, I hate this or I hate that or I can't stand this--turn the lights off. Turn the air-conditioning off. Turn it all off and see how well you like it or don't like it.

If we start using all of our resources, we can, once and for all, end our dependence on foreign oil. If we end our dependence on foreign oil, we will be a stronger and more secure Nation. We can do that within this generation and keep our economy more secure and our economy producing jobs for generations to come.

All I ask is for a level playing field. I ask that our government--in this beautiful country of ours--partner with me and West Virginia so we can work together.

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

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, weeks and months ahead and maybe even for years to come, we will be debating President Obama's latest global climate proposal. It is crucial that this debate be based on crystal clear facts and not clouded by political ideologies on either side.

So, starting today, I plan to deliver a series of speeches on energy, and I plan to start with coal, which I know is no surprise to the Presiding Officer. Coal is America's greatest energy resource. I think it is important to lay out the facts about coal for several reasons.

No. 1, coal is America's most abundant, most reliable, and most affordable source of energy, and it will be for decades to come.

No. 2, the coal industry and its supporters have been falsely portrayed by opponents as monsters who have done something wrong, that they value money over health and the environment.

No. 3, I think the American public has some basic misconceptions about coal and how important it is to keeping our economy growing and our Nation secure.

I think that because I was recently asked: If coal is so controversial, then why don't we as a nation just use more electricity? The question shows that, basically, people don't understand where their electricity comes from. When we turn the lights on, over 40 percent of the people depend on coal. Most of this industry and this country has been built on the back of coal and what coal has produced.

I didn't know how to respond to the person who asked that. It was one of those rare moments when I was at a loss for words. Just imagine standing there and being asked: Why would we continue to keep mining coal? Why wouldn't we just use more electricity?

I guess what I should have said was this: When we surf the Internet, watch TV or play video games, when we charge a cell phone or turn on an air-conditioner or plug in our hybrid car to charge it, we are using electricity, and there is a good chance that electricity came from coal.

Coal has a distinguished past. In fact, one can't tell the history of America without telling the history of coal. It fueled the industrialization of America in the 19th and early 20th centuries, making us what we are today: the richest and most powerful Nation in history.

Coal also has a distinguished present. It is responsible for 37.4 percent of all electricity generated in the United States today--more than any other source of energy.

Just as important, coal has a distinguished future ahead of it. The U.S. Department of Energy says it will remain

the dominant fuel for electricity generation in our country at least through 2040.

Despite so many attempts to kill it, coal is critical to meeting the future energy needs of America. In other words, we can't make it without coal.

Coal has the longest and perhaps the most varied history of all fuels. It has been used for heating since the caveman. It was once prized as the best stone in Britain by Roman invaders who actually carved jewelry out of it. Native Americans used it long before the New World settlers to bake their pottery, and blacksmiths have used coal to forge tools and all kinds of metal objects at least since the Middle Ages. In fact, a deep, rich vein of coal runs through all of human history and not just American history. Given all the blame it gets for carbon pollution today, it is worth remembering that coal was universally regarded as a carbon treasure.

It is difficult to exaggerate the importance of coal to both the American and British economies in the 19th and 20th centuries. Coal was the fuel that fired the Industrial Revolution. In the popular imagination, the industrial revolution is cotton mills, railways, steamboats, engines, and factories. But at the core of the industrial revolution was our use of energy, and the energy that powered the mills, the railroads, the steam engines, and the factories was coal. In fact, when James Watt invented the steam engine, he used coal to make the steam to run his engine, making it possible for machinery to do work previously done by humans and animals.

But perhaps the most important role coal played in the industrial revolution was in the making of steel--the predominant building material of the time. In 1861, when the country was torn by Civil War, factories used coal to produce steel for the guns, the bullets, and the cannons that preserved this Union.

By 1875, coke, which is made from coal, replaced charcoal as the primary fuel for iron blast furnaces to make steel. With the rise of iron and steel, coal production increased by 300 percent during the 1870s and early 1880s. By the early 1900s, coal was supplying more than 100,000 coke ovens, mostly in western Pennsylvania and northwestern West Virginia.

In the 1880s, coal was first used to generate electricity for factories and homes. Long after homes were being lighted by electricity produced by coal, many of them continued to have furnaces for heating and stoves for cooking that were fueled by coal. I can remember as a young person at my grandparents' home, I would always stoke the fire at night and bank up the coal so it would be warm all night long.

Of course, political, economic, and intellectual conditions also contributed to the industrialization of America. Representative government, capitalism, and the free expression of new ideas all played their part. But at the heart of this sweeping industrial revolution, a profound transition from hand production to machines, was because of coal.

The first coal miners in the American Colonies were likely farmers who dug coal from beds exposed on the surface and sold it by the bushel--by the bushel. In 1748, the first commercial coal production began from mines around Richmond, VA. By the late 1700s, coal was being mined on what was known as Coal Hill. Now it is known as Mount Washington in Pittsburgh, PA. The early settlers there used coal to heat their homes, but they also carried it in canoes across the Monongahela River to provide fuel for the military garrison at Fort Pitt.

Coal was first discovered in what is now West Virginia by German explorer John Peter Salling in 1742 in what is now Boone County. I have to wonder how hard it was to discover coal in West Virginia because coal occurs in 53 of West Virginia's 55 counties.

As early as 1810, the residents of Wheeling--once a part of Virginia and now a treasured part of West Virginia--used coal from nearby mines to heat their homes. By 1817, coal began to replace charcoal as a fuel for the numerous salt furnaces on the Kanawha River. But it was not until the mid-1800s that there was extensive mining in West Virginia.

The coalfields in southern West Virginia opened in the 1870s, and many of them owed their success to the coming of the Chesapeake and Ohio Railway.

Of course, you cannot talk about coal without talking about coal miners--the bravest and most patriotic men and women I have ever met in my life. A lot of Americans only know the TV and movie stereotypes of coal miners, so they do not always give miners the respect they deserve. The fact is that they deserve the same respect as our military veterans because they go down into the mines for the same reasons our veterans took up arms--to protect this country. It is not just a job, it is a calling, it is a way of life, even an act of patriotism in the defense of this great country, and to tell you the truth most of the coal miners I meet in West Virginia are also military veterans.

Coal miners are vital to the security of this Nation. That was never so clear than in World War II when Franklin Roosevelt nationalized America's coal mines--it was that important to us.

In a fireside chat in 1943 explaining his actions, Franklin Delano Roosevelt said:

A stopping of the coal supply, even for a short time, would

involve a gamble with the lives of American soldiers and

sailors and the future security of our whole people.

That was the President of the United States in 1943.

A stopping of the coal supply is still a gamble with the future security of our country.

My own family first came to America to work in the mines back at the turn of the 20th century. Growing up in the small coal-mining town of Farmington, I saw just how proud and courageous all these miners were. In 1968, after the horrific Farmington No. 9 mine disaster that claimed 78 victims, including my uncle, I experienced the healing strength of coal-mining families.

Working conditions and living conditions were difficult for miners in the early days, but they did their best to make a living and provide for their families. They fought and struggled for everything--first alone, then as union members led by the legendary John L. Lewis, the lion of labor. Lewis pleaded the case of the miners in what was once described as ``the thundering voice of the captain of a mighty host, demanding the rights to which free men are entitled.''

If you ever have any doubt about the courage of coal miners, read the scribbled last words of one of the miners who died in the mining accident at Sago, WV, in 2006. I was Governor at that time. In the pitch black of the mine, the miner, Mr. Martin Toler, Jr., wrote:

Tell all I'll see them on the other side. I love you. It

wasn't bad. Just went to sleep.

Can you imagine? They were all sitting in that area knowing what their fate would be.

From the very beginning coal mining was tough and demanding. It still is. But today it is also safe and efficient, and it is even high-tech. In the 1880s coal miners were learning how to use mules and donkeys to haul coal through the mines. Today they are training in robotics, automation, and positioning technologies. And the pay is good--starting out around $60,000 a year, sometimes even starting at as much as $80,000 a year.

Coal mining provides more than 20,000 direct jobs in West Virginia at an average wage above $79,000 per person, generating more than $1.6 billion in income, but it also accounts for another 25,500 indirect jobs in West Virginia. The most recent available data show that the economic impact of the coal industry in West Virginia equals nearly $20 billion a year--$20 billion a year in my little State.

To the miner, coal is the energy business, so they are mystified when they hear talk out of Washington about getting rid of coal, even as we continue to try to achieve energy independence. They cannot understand why their own government tries to kill the good well-paying jobs that support their families and provide the energy this country needs. And I cannot understand it either. I really cannot. It does not make any sense.

Coal is America's most significant source of electricity, and it will continue to be for decades to come. The United States holds the largest estimated recoverable reserves of coal in the world--enough to last nearly 300 years. Coal currently generates almost 40 percent of the electricity in America, and our own Energy Department

reports that our country will get 37 percent of its energy from coal at least through 2040. So it is obvious that removing it from our energy mix will have disastrous consequences for our economy, which is still trying to get back on both feet. We need an ``all of the above'' energy policy that uses every energy source we have--hydroelectric, nuclear, biomass, renewables, and fossil fuels, including coal. You cannot tell the history of America without telling the history of coal, and you cannot plan an energy future for America without coal.

To put it in a nutshell, there are 8 billion tons of coal being burned in the world today. One billion tons of coal are being burned in America. For those who are saying we are destroying the global climate because of the coal we are burning, we burn it better and cleaner than most any nation on Earth.

I am not a climate scientist, but I do know that the ocean currents and the wind currents do not start and stop in North America. I do know that. And I know that if you stop burning every ton of coal in America, thinking you are going to save the climate of the world, when there are 7 billion other tons of coal being burned--and it is growing faster than any time in history--we have oceanfront property in West Virginia at a bargain for you. That is what we are dealing with today. It does not make any sense at all.

I know I have my good friend Senator Hoeven here from the good State of North Dakota, which is the leading energy producer in the country.

Will the Senator yield for a question.

If I may ask the Senator this, the Senator and I know the facts of what we do in our States and how we do it and how much energy we produce. Both of our States are energy-producing States. We are net exporters of energy, correct?

Here in Washington, in the atmosphere that you are looked upon, let's say, in the atmosphere you enter into, do they believe we just throw caution to the wind and we do not care about the environment because we come from an energy State? Is that what the Senator is finding when he talks to other colleagues who might not know what an energy-producing State is about, but they sure like what we do?

Let me ask another question. If the plan the President has put forward makes it almost impossible to build another coal plant--and maybe shut down many in this country--is there still going to be a demand for our coal overseas? Will we be exporting that coal? It will be burned somewhere in the world.

Let me just say this to the Senator. I found out today-- the

information I received today was most disturbing from this standpoint: We all know that if we could develop and have a partnership with our government--with the EPA, with the Department of Energy--of finding the latest, greatest of technology that helped us still be able to use the most abundant resource--and the resource that is in the most demand for the whole world, correct--if we could do that, then we could truly make a difference in the global climate--we truly could--worldwide.

I found out today--I am going to make sure these figures are accurate--that there is $8 billion. So the administration can tell me and you: Senators, guess what. We still have $8 billion for clean coal technology in a line item for the Department of Energy.

Guess what. That $8 billion has been line-itemed since 2008. Not one project has been approved for which to use the money. I do not know if you found that. We have not had the technology perfected on a commercial basis for carbon capture sequestration. You have a coal-to- liquid plant, I believe. It has worked well for how many years?

I want to ask my friend this question: Does he believe he could have built that plant in North Dakota today under the regulations that the EPA and this administration were to put in front of him?

What we are saying is how many people would think in West Virginia we have one of the largest wind farms east of the Mississippi? How many do you think really understand that? They think we are all just a one-horse show. We have wind, we have gas, we have coal. We have hydro and biofuel. We are all in. We are trying to use every resource we have the best we can.

All we are asking for is a partnership. It is so hard to find. The people cannot understand. There is an old saying back home: You cannot live with me, and you cannot live without me. I guarantee you will live a lot better with me than you will without me.

This country cannot live with us today and cannot live without us, but they have lived pretty darn good and will live a lot better if they will work with us than against us. I think that is what we are seeing. Our little States are doing the heavy lifting. Our little States have done the heavy lifting. We are providing the energy this country needs. We are providing the economic opportunities to compete globally. If they continue to overregulate to the point they strangle us, they are strangling the economics of this country.

I am just praying to the Good Lord they will listen to us.

The only thing I would say to my good friend is, we are a Democrat and a Republican from two energy States. It is not bipartisan. Energy should have no partisanship. Energy basically is something we all need and we all use. When you open that refrigerator, you need that energy to keep it cool. When you go into a house out of 100-degree weather, you need to be cool and comfortable. You need energy as a basic quality of life. That has basically made us different from most every Nation.

Every developing nation today is trying everything they can to deliver what we take for granted. All we are asking for is for our President--he is my President, he is your President, he is all of our President. We want to work with him. We want him to be our partner. Do not be my adversary; be my ally. Work with me. We can do it. But we have to be serious about it.

If there is $8 billion sitting on the sideline at the Department of Energy, and you are telling me you are going to use that for clean coal technology, let's start using it. Let's be a leader of the whole world and show the other 7 billion tons of coal that is being consumed in the world how you can do it and do it better. I think that is really what we are saying.

To my good friend from North Dakota, I appreciate so much the approach he has been taking, a most commonsense, a most reasonable, responsible approach. We have been friends for a long time. We were both Governors of our respective States. We worked together. We tried to solve problems. It is exactly what we are still doing here in the Senate. I thank the Senator.