Floor Statements

Mr. President, I wish to introduce two energy efficiency amendments that I am offering for attachment to the Shaheen-Portman energy efficiency bill.

I thank both of the bill's sponsors, the Senators from New Hampshire and Ohio, for their willingness to work with me and with our cosponsors on

this bipartisan legislation. I also thank both the Senator from Oregon, who is the chairman of the energy committee, as well as the ranking member of the energy committee, the Senator from Alaska, for working with us as well.

Obviously, I hope we will be able to work through the list of amendments to this legislation so that we can get votes on these bills. We have broad bipartisan support on both of these measures, so I wish to take a few minutes to introduce them and to briefly describe them.

The first is an amendment regarding water heaters. It is actually the water heater efficiency amendment. Currently, a 2010 Department of Energy rule on water heaters effectively bans the manufacture of large electric water heaters beginning in 2015, which will greatly affect consumers in our rural areas and hurt the effectiveness of some of the demand-response rural electric programs. These demand-response rural electric programs are designed to use off-peak loads, which is both energy efficient and also generates big-time savings for consumers. So it is one of those win-win deals. But many of our rural areas are not serviced by natural gas. As a result, they would be forced to buy multiple water heaters in order to meet their need because the load doesn't enable them to store enough heat. That doesn't make any sense.

What I am offering is a practical amendment that improves the efficiency of electric water heaters but lets our rural areas have access to affordable, efficient water heaters that can supplement renewable energy. Much of this off-peak energy is renewable energy, so there is another benefit as well. This is one that saves money, is energy efficient, and also provides good environmental stewardship.

Many of our electric cooperatives and other utilities have voluntary demand-response programs that use electric water heaters to more effectively manage power supply and demand. In those areas where renewables are part of the electric generation system, these water heaters facilitate the integration of renewable energy that can be stored--like at nighttime, obviously--for use during peak hours. That includes such things as wind and solar energy.

This amendment would allow the continued manufacture of large, grid- enabled, electric-resistance water heaters only for their use in electric thermal storage or demand-response programs, meaning that they use off-peak load or lower cost energy that would otherwise be lost or not used. The amendment would require that grid-enabled water heaters have a volume of more than 75 gallons, be energy efficient, and work on grids that have a demand-response system. So, again, you are using off- peak loads, using renewable energy, and it saves the consumer a lot of money and makes sure they have the hot water they need for their use but is a big-time cost saver and good environmental stewardship measure.

We have broad support from the energy efficiency groups, from the environmental groups, from manufacturers, and from the rural electric cooperatives. I will name some of them. These include the Air- Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute, the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, the American Public Power Association, Edison Electric Institute, General Electric Company, National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, the National Resource Defense Council, the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance, and there are many more. This has broad support. I am not aware at this point if there are opponents.

The Shaheen-Portman bill is an energy efficiency bill. It is about using energy more wisely, benefiting both providers and consumers alike. And that is exactly what this amendment does. It saves money, it saves energy, it benefits the environment, and it benefits consumers.

I certainly yield to the good Senator from Ohio.

Mr. President, I thank the good Senator from Ohio. It really does comport both with the spirit and intent of the legislation that he has coauthored with the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire, but really it actually accomplishes what the Department of Energy set out to do.

In rural areas across this country, whether in North Dakota, Ohio, West Virginia, New Hampshire, or anywhere else, we have rural consumers who are looking at having to buy multiple water heaters just to have enough hot water because they are on these off-peak load programs, which makes sense and which is what we want. We want them on these off- peak programs because it is more efficient and saves money and utilizes renewable energy, but we have to enable them to do it. So this accomplishes what DOE set out to do.

Again, I thank the distinguished Senator from Ohio.

Mr. President, I wish to offer another amendment to the underlying legislation. This is the ``all of the above'' Federal building energy conservation.

We talk about doing ``all of the above'' energy development in this country, and we have to get from talking about it to doing it. This is a great example of what I am talking about. It actually goes back and addresses a problem that was created in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. In that act they set efficiency standards for Federal buildings that have to be achieved by 2030 and then they limit it as to which types of energy can be used, creating a real problem for the Department of Energy, which is actually having to implement that legislation.

This is a piece of legislation that actually will enable some of these energy efficiency goals to be achieved with better environmental stewardship but with a commonsense ``all of the above'' approach in terms of energy sources. Frankly, the goals of that cannot be achieved without them. The Shaheen-Portman legislation is an on-subject piece of legislation that really allows us to correct the problems in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 and really accomplishes what that act set out to do, so if I could just take a couple minutes to describe it.

This ``all of the above'' Federal Building Energy Conservation Act, amendment No. 1917, is a commonsense piece of legislation that saves taxpayers money by enhancing the energy efficiency of Federal buildings by allowing all forms or all sources of energy to power our buildings while still meeting the objectives of the underlying legislation.

Currently, section 433 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 mandates the elimination of all fossil fuel-generated energy use in any new Federal building by the year 2030, but the mandate also covers any major renovation of $2.5 million or more to any Federal building. Unfortunately, the Department of Energy has been unable to finalize a rule because the law itself is unworkable.

Think about it--any Federal building where there is a renovation of more than $2.5 million, you can no longer use fossil fuels--think natural gas--in that building. So what are you going to heat and cool the building with? Are you sure you are going to have enough intermittent power--whether it is solar or wind or something else--to make sure that for any Federal building

where you make a change of more than $2.5 million you are going to be able to meet the energy needs of that building? The Department of Energy can't do it. They can't write a rule that meets that statutory requirement. So we fix it in this amendment.

My amendment would replace an unworkable mandate that is impossible to implement with a practical, time-proven approach, using technology and all of our energy resources to achieve the goal of energy efficiency. Again, this will enable us to achieve the energy efficiency goals of the underlying legislation, which is the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007.

Instead of prohibiting the use of fossil fuels, including next- generation technologies as section 433 would currently provide as written, this amendment creates sensible energy efficiency guidelines to make Federal buildings more energy efficient, thereby lowering emissions. The measure also helps to make sure when we do major renovations we use the most up-to-date building codes. We do all of this in a transparent manner by having the Secretary of Energy make information available as to how the Federal Government is improving its efficiency in Federal buildings.

Current law is unable to do any of this. The reality is section 433 does not work, as I said, and cannot be implemented without a fix. We are providing that fix. According to the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy:

The current section 433 is not very workable because in its

present form it discourages investments in long-term energy

savings contracts and in combined heat and power systems.

So if you care about efficiency--that is what this underlying bill is all about, energy efficiency--if you care about efficiency, we need to change section 433. If you care about making sure our taxpayer dollars are well spent, we need to pass the amendment I am offering. It is better to have aggressive yet achievable goals with a means to obtain them through private sector financing mechanisms than to have an unfunded mandate that will not produce the intended results.

Major conservation stakeholders agree. This amendment is supported by a remarkably broad coalition. That coalition includes: the Alliance to Save Energy, the Combined Heat and Power Association, the American Gas Association, the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, the Edison Electric Institute, the Federal Performance Contractors Coalition, Owens Corning, Siemens, the National Association of Energy Service Companies, the American Public Power Association, Lockheed Martin, Fuel Cell & Hydrogen Energy Association, Honeywell--the list goes on, and there are many more.

That is because, again, it is about common sense, it is about energy efficiency, and it is about doing it in a way that actually accomplishes those goals.

Energy conservation is an objective where we should be able to find consensus. Everyone agrees it makes good sense to save energy. This amendment makes the current law both practical and achievable. The Congressional Budget Office says it saves money. I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment.

Finally, if I may before I close, I would like to make some brief comments in regard to the farm bill. We have been working on a farm bill for over 2 years. I am a member of the Senate Agriculture Committee. Last year we passed a solid farm bill from the Senate Agriculture Committee that strengthens and enhances crop insurance and saves money. At a time when we are running a Federal deficit and debt, we are saving money. We passed the bill out of the Agriculture Committee last year. The House passed a bill different than the bill we passed out of the Senate Agriculture Committee, but the House Agriculture Committee passed a farm bill as well, and a good farm bill.

On the Senate floor last year we passed the farm bill and passed it with a large bipartisan vote. On the House side they were not able to pass it. They were not able to pass their bill, so at the end of the year when the current farm bill expired we were forced to do an extension.

We come back this year. The Senate Agriculture Committee again passes a good solid farm bill that strengthens crop insurance, is good for farmers and ranchers, and saves money. We pass it on the Senate floor as well. On the House side, they pass the bill through the House Agriculture Committee and they pass a bill on the floor. It did not include the nutrition piece, but they did pass a bill on the floor.

This week they are set to vote on a nutrition bill. That is good. They need to do that and they need to make their decision on how they want to handle the food stamp reform, or Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program reforms. But the key is they need to name their conferees. They need to take action this week and name their conferees. We have named our conferees. I am pleased to be a member of the conference committee. But we need to work. We need to get this finished.

The reality is, for our farmers and ranchers, we should not be providing another 1-year extension. These are business people. They need to plan. They need to know what the 5-year farm program is going to be so they can plan and operate their business accordingly. There are on the order of 16 million jobs in this country that are dependent, directly or indirectly, on agriculture. We want to get this economy growing. Those are a tremendous number of jobs, 16 million jobs, that, directly or indirectly, rely on agriculture. Agriculture creates a positive balance of trade.

We are talking about an energy efficiency bill right now and our farmers are out there right now, not only producing food but fuel as well--food, fuel, and fiber. They create not only jobs in this country but they have a positive trade balance, which is tremendous for our country.

The bill, as I mentioned earlier, saves money. At a minimum we are going to save $24 billion, and it will likely be more than that. It helps with the deficit and the debt.

I want to close today by again calling on my colleagues on the House side to deal with the nutrition issue, name their conferees, let's get into conference, and let's get a farm bill done. Thanks to our farmers and ranchers, we have the highest quality, lowest cost food supply in the world, in the history of the world. That benefits every single American--whether you live in rural America or in the biggest city. Let's get it done.

I again thank the sponsors of this bill. They are working hard. You know what. They are setting an example for this body on the kind of bipartisanship and working together we need to have to get things done for the American people. I commend them both and thank them for this opportunity to present these amendments to their bill.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to talk about the Keystone XL Pipeline. I am going to submit a concurrent resolution that I am sponsoring with Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, but before I do that, I want to talk specifically in terms of the Keystone XL Pipeline and correcting the record. I am correcting the record relative to statements the administration has made recently about the project.

As we all know, the Obama administration has been reviewing this project for 5 years. The initial application was submitted by TransCanada, the parent company, in September of 2008, and we are now almost in August of 2013. So in addition to delaying the project, they are also putting out false information. President Obama and Treasury Secretary Lew presented information this week on the Keystone Pipeline that is wrong, and today I want to correct the record.

I want to quote directly from an interview President Obama conducted and reported in the New York Times on Saturday. I am going to read from that transcript because it goes to a number of issues in terms of jobs and energy development as well as the requirements the administration says need to be addressed for the Keystone Pipeline. However, I think the company has addressed those issues in great detail.

Again, this is the transcript from the New York Times. Also, the interview was conducted last week when the President was on his jobs tour.

The interviewer said:

A couple of other quick subjects that are economic-related.

Keystone pipeline--Republicans especially talked about that

as a big job creator. You've said that you would approve it

only if you could be assured it would not significantly

exacerbate carbon in the atmosphere. Is there anything that

Canada could do or the oil companies could do to offset that

as a way of helping you reaching that decision?

That was the question asked of the President. The President responded:

Well, first of all, Michael, [the interviewer] Republicans

have said that this would be a big jobs generator. There is

no evidence that that's true. And my hope would be that any

reporter who is looking at the facts would take the time to

confirm that the most realistic estimates are this might

create maybe 2,000 jobs during the construction of the

pipeline--

That is the Keystone Pipeline.

which might take a year or two--and then after that we're

talking somewhere between 50 and 100 [chuckles] jobs in an

economy of 150 million working people.

The interviewer goes on:

Yet there are a number of unions who want you to approve

this.

Mr. Obama:

Well, look, they might like to see 2,000 jobs initially.

But that is a blip relative to the need.

So what we also know is, is that that oil is going to be

piped down to the Gulf to be sold on the world oil markets,

so it does not bring down gas prices here in the United

States. In fact, it might actually cause some gas prices in

the Midwest to go up where currently they can't ship some of

that oil to world markets.

Now, having said that, there is a potential benefit for us

integrating further with a reliable ally to the north our

energy supplies.

But I meant what I said; I will evaluate this based on

whether or not this is going to significantly contribute to

carbon in our atmosphere. And there is no doubt that Canada

at the source in those tar sands could potentially be doing

more to mitigate carbon releases.

The interviewer asked:

And if they did, could that offset concerns about the

pipeline itself?

To which the President responded:

We haven't seen specific ideas or plans. But all of that

will go into the mix in terms of John Kerry's decision or

recommendation on this issue.

That was the key part of the interview I want to address in my comments.

There are three points I would like to make. The first one is jobs. President Obama says the project will create 2,000 jobs during construction. Then he says maybe 50 or so after that, and he kind of chuckles as he says that.

The first question is: Where does that number come from? Where is he getting his number? His own State Department has a very different number. They say it is going to create more than 42,000 jobs during construction. They didn't say 2,000 jobs during construction, but more than 42,000 jobs during construction.

I will read from the State Department report. It is a draft from the environmental impact statement which came out on March 1, 2013. The State Department report says:

Including direct, indirect, and induced effects, the

proposed Project would potentially support approximately

42,100 average annual jobs across the United States over a 1-

to 2-year construction period.

That is right out of the report. The State Department goes on to talk about some of the other employment benefits created by the Keystone project.

This employment would potentially translate into

approximately $2.05 billion in earnings. Direct expenditures

such as construction and material costs . . . would total

approximately $3.3 billion. Short-term revenues from sources

such as sales and use taxes would total approximately $65

million in states that levy such a tax.

So you are getting tax revenues and $65 million as well.

Yields from fuel and other taxes could not be calculated,

but would provide some additional economic benefit to host

countries and states.

There is the environmental impact as to the employment right out of the State Department report. We have to ask: Why is President Obama talking about a number like 2,000? It appears the number he is quoting comes from opponents of the projects. Rather than taking his own State Department numbers--done after 5 years of study--he is quoting numbers which are wrong from opponents of the project. Again, don't take my word for it.

Recently the Washington Post--in their fact-check article--stated that President Obama appeared to be using numbers from opponents of the project rather than from his own State Department.

So why would he do that? Why would he take numbers from opponents rather than the State Department?

Well, here is what Sean McGarvey, president of North America's Building Trades Unions, had to say about it in a statement he issued several days ago. According to Sean McGarvey, president of North America's Building Trade Unions:

America's Building Trade Unions were disappointed to see

that the President chose to minimize the importance of jobs

for construction workers and to use employment figures

promulgated by special interests and activist billionaires

rather than his own Department of State's findings that the

proposed Keystone XL Pipeline would support approximately

42,100 average annual jobs across the United States over a 1-

to 2-year construction period.

But the President goes on--it is not just the jobs number that is incorrect. The President also stated this in that New York Times interview:

What we also know is, is that that oil is going to be piped

down to the Gulf to be sold on the world oil markets, so it

does not bring down gas prices here in the United States. In

fact, it might actually cause some gas prices in the Midwest

to go up where currently they can't ship some of that oil to

world markets.

So he is saying the oil won't be used in the United States and, in fact, it might cause gas prices to go up. But now he is contradicting a report from his own Department of Energy. His own Department of Energy addressed those very issues back in June of 2011. They issued a report, and that report forecasted that the oil will be used in the United States and, further, that it will reduce the price of fuel at the pump for Midwest consumers. I will quote from that report. Again, this is a report from the Department of Energy that was provided in June of 2011.

Without a surplus of heavy oil in (the Gulf Coast), there

would be no economic incentive to ship Canadian oil sands to

Asia via Port Arthur (in Texas). Many of these (Gulf Coast)

refineries rely on declining supplies of Mexican and

Venezuelan heavy crudes. . . . They would be natural

customers for increased supplies of Canadian dilbit (oil

sands oil). . . . The Gulf Coast appetite for Canadian oil

sands . . . will be much higher than can be supplied by just

the Keystone XL Pipeline.

So they are saying it will be used in the United States.

Concerning the cost of fuel to customers, DOE said:

With substantial additional volumes of light-sweet and

other crudes accessible to Gulf Coast refineries, (West Texas

Intermediate) prices would increase, Brent, Argus

and other market crude prices would decline. Crude costs to

(East Coast) and (Gulf Coast) refineries would be lower.

Here is the key sentence from this section:

Gasoline prices in all markets served by (East and Gulf

Coast) refineries would be lower, including the Midwest.

So the Department of Energy in its report specifically states that the oil will be used in the United States--we are a net importer of crude oil--and that gas prices would be lower, not higher. As I said earlier, the State Department in the EIS said the job number will be 42,000, not 2,000.

The President then concludes the interview by essentially telling Canada what they should do in terms of their regulatory requirements. He says:

And there is no doubt that Canada at the source in those

tar sands could potentially be doing more to mitigate carbon

release.

The interviewer then asks:

And if they did, could that offset the concerns about the

pipeline itself?

President Obama declines to indicate any specifics, but he says essentially all of that will go into the mix for the decision on whether to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline.

So here we are. After 5 years--after 5 years of delay, the President is talking about adding new requirements to the project. He is talking about adding those requirements in another country--our closest friend and ally, Canada--or I guess he is essentially saying he would turn down the project--a project that actually reduces greenhouse gas because there is less greenhouse gas if we move that oil by pipeline than if it is moved by truck, by train, or by tanker.

Furthermore, perhaps the biggest irony is that he is imposing this type of regulatory barrier at the same time he is on a jobs tour, which created some problems for his Cabinet members as well. For example, Jack Lew was on ``Fox News Sunday'' with Chris Wallace, and he got it wrong on Keystone as well last Sunday. The following is part of that transcript. Again, this was ``Fox News Sunday'' with Chris Wallace and Jack Lew. Wallace asked this question:

Let me ask you one question. If you're so interested in

creating more jobs, why not approve the Keystone Pipeline

which would create tens of thousands of jobs, sir?

Lew responds:

Chris, I think, as you know, the Keystone Pipeline is being

reviewed. It's been in the process that was slowed down

because--

Wallace then says:

Several years it's being reviewed. I think what, three,

four years.

Lew responds:

It was--there were some political games that were played

that took it off the trail, past its completion. When

Republicans put it out there as something that was put on a

timetable where it could not be resolved, it caused a delay.

We are getting to the end of the review and we'll have to see

where that review is. But I think playing political

games with something like this is a mistake.

So he is saying that somehow the Republicans were playing political games and that slowed down the project and that is why it has been in review for 5 years. Five years it has been in review.

Well, as for Secretary Lew's remarks on ``Fox News Sunday,'' we need only to let the facts--especially the dates--speak for themselves. Secretary Lew claimed that the Keystone XL project was delayed because Republicans politicized it. I would be happy to share with them a letter I received in the summer of 2011 from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. In that letter the Secretary assured me that the Department was poised to make a permitting decision on the Keystone XL project by December of that year--December of 2011.

I have the letter here. It is dated July 26, 2011. It is addressed to Senator Hoeven. It says: ``Thank you for your letter regarding the proposed Keystone XL Pipeline.'' It goes on to make various comments. The key line in the letter is this: ``We expect to make a decision on whether to grant or deny the permit before the end of the year.'' This is for the Keystone XL Pipeline project from, at that time, Secretary of State Clinton. Instead, however, during the 2012 Presidential election--less than a year away in November--President Obama intervened to postpone that decision until after the election. Then and only then did I press to seek legislatively for a timely decision on the Keystone XL Pipeline and introduced legislation, which we passed, calling for a decision within 60 days, which the President declined to make. So clearly the delay of 5 years is because the administration has refused to make a decision and not for any other reason.

It is not only time to make a decision on the Keystone Pipeline, it is far past time. That is exactly what the American people want. As a matter of fact, in a recent--the most recent poll on the Keystone Pipeline project, Harris Interactive Poll, 82 percent of Americans support approving the Keystone XL Pipeline--82 percent. The President has continued to review it and talk about more requirements. He has provided incorrect information on the jobs and whether the oil will be used here and the impact on gas prices. But 82 percent of Americans want this project approved.

It is about energy. It is about jobs. It is about economic activity. It is about energy security for our country. That is why, as I conclude here today, I wish to submit for the Senate Record today, along with Senator Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, a concurrent resolution expressing the sense of the Congress that construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline and the Federal approvals required for construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline are in the national interests of the United States. Essentially, with this concurrent resolution, what we are saying is that the Keystone XL Pipeline is in the national interests of the United States and that the administration needs to approve it. It is a bipartisan resolution, and we will seek to have it approved here in the Senate and approved in the House as well. This is in addition to bipartisan legislation I have already introduced which would approve the project congressionally.

The simple point is this: We need to keep the push on to get this project approved, whether it is with a joint resolution of Congress in support of the project, getting the President to make a decision and to make a favorable decision and to do it now instead of continuing to postpone after 5 years or whether Congress steps forward and approves the project directly through legislation I have already submitted.

We need to get this project done for the American people. It really is about jobs. It is about economic growth and activity. It is about energy for our country and getting this country to the point where we are energy independent, energy secure, where we don't need to rely on oil from the Middle East. That is why 82 percent of Americans in the most recent poll across this country are saying this is the kind of project we need. Mr. President, step up and get it done for the American people.

Madam President, I wish to thank the Senator from Maine, as well as Senator Toomey from Pennsylvania. I wish to express comments in regard to the motion to recommit we will be voting on around 3 o'clock.

THUD is an important bill. It includes funding for things we consider absolute priorities, including, certainly, transportation, roads, bridges, funds for housing and for other purposes. So we very much want to fund the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development bill.

The problem we have is we haven't agreed, as far as the appropriations bills, as to an overall total of how much we will spend. That is really the problem we are confronting with this legislation.

Under the Budget Control Act, the total for all of the appropriations bills cannot exceed $967 billion. That is the law. That is the law. But the majority party is appropriating to $1.058 trillion. That is a problem. So as appropriators we want to go through prioritized spending, make sure we are funding the things that should be funded, and then for things that are lower priorities, not funding those so we can truly fund the priorities that are important to the American people.

The problem is we are not going to be able to do that unless we get an agreement on the total funding level, and that agreement is exactly what the BCA--the Budget Control Act--provides, and it says specifically $967 billion. That is the law. That is the law.

We have a $17 trillion debt. We have a deficit this year that CBO projects to be in the range of $750 billion. That is a real problem for our country. That is a problem we have to address. We have to get the deficit and the debt under control. There are two ways to do that. One is to raise revenue that comes from economic growth, not higher taxes. It comes from economic growth and getting our economy going. Of course, the other way to reduce our deficit is to control spending, and that is what a budget is all about--and sticking to that budget. We ought to have a balanced budget amendment, which I very much support. But what we have right now is the Budget Control Act. It is the law.

So the question I ask is, Why is the majority party saying we are going to appropriate 12 appropriations bills that total $1.058 trillion rather than $967 billion? How are we going to get our deficit and our debt under control if we don't adhere to the budget guidelines that are set?

So the simple and very clear point I wish to make is this: As appropriators and as Senators, I believe we all want to prioritize funding. We want to make sure we fund the things that are important, such as infrastructure, such as housing, and other priorities. For things that shouldn't be funded, we should say we are not going to fund those items. That is the difference between prioritizing and the so- called sequester--the across-the-board cuts.

We are headed down a trail right now, if we approve this bill as is and bring other appropriations bills to the floor and approve them as they are, the sequester automatically kicks in again. Under the law, the sequester comes right back in and will bring these bills down to a total of $967 billion. So what have we gained? We

haven't accomplished what we are trying to do, which is to prioritize the funding.

So let's find a way across the aisle to come to an agreement to make sure we prioritize funding and do so within the BCA limit of $967 billion because that is what the law says. That is what the law says we have to do. We need to find a way to come to an agreement.

With that, I yield the floor.

I come to the floor today to speak again in support of the permanent solution to the student loan program. Like my colleague from the great State of North Carolina, I think that is exactly what we have with the bipartisan Student Loan Certainty Act.

I want to acknowledge all of those who worked so hard to come together and support this legislation. It is actually not bipartisan, it is tripartisan. Former Governor King is an Independent, so you have Republicans, Democrats, and Independents all in support of this legislation. That is what it takes. It takes people coming together across the aisle doing good work. That is what they have done here to put this legislation together. I am pleased to be supporting it.

I come today to call on all of our colleagues to support it as well. The plan provides students with dependable low-cost financing on a long-term basis. That is the key. This is a long-term fix. It is called the Student Loan Certainty Act because it provides just that, it provides certainty for students and for families.

Again, let's take a minute to review how the plan works. The plan would tie all student loan rates to the 10-year Treasury note rate to reflect both current market and employment conditions. For this year that rate index would be 1.81 percent. Then both subsidized and unsubsidized Stafford loans would be 2.05 percent over that rate. Graduate student rates would be 3.6 percent over the 10-year Treasury rate, PLUS loans would be 4.6 percent over the Treasury rate.

It is important to note that the rate on those loans is then fixed, so you have that certainty when you take out the loan. You know what the rate on that loan is going to be for the life of the loan. It is important for our borrowers.

Let's take a minute to compare this program with the existing student loan program. Subsidized Stafford loans right now are charged at 6.8 percent. It was 3.4 percent, but now it is 6.8 percent, because as my colleague identified the program had expired.

We are in this situation where we are going with short-term extensions. So we faced these periods like right now where the program has expired, so the rate for Stafford loans is 6.8 percent. Under this program, that goes to 3.86 percent this year--3.86 percent compared to 6.8 percent.

The same thing for unsubsidized Stafford loans. Now 60 percent of the borrowers, the undergraduate borrowers, borrow unsubsidized Stafford loans. A lot of the lower income students who borrow subsidized loans also borrow unsubsidized loans. They were paying that 6.8 percent even before the program expired. For all of those undergraduate students, the rate goes down to 3.68 percent. That is a big-time savings for undergraduate students. Furthermore, the program is capped at 8.25 percent, so they have the certainty of a cap as well. They save money now. As was pointed out by my colleagues, they save money now and they have the certainty of a cap as well.

There are caps for both the graduate students and for the PLUS loans that parents take out as well. In addition to the caps, there is another safety net in the program. The other safety net in the bill is the income-based repayment level. Under the income-based repayment level provisions, student loan payments are limited to 15 percent of income. Any balance remaining on the loan after 25 years is forgiven. So you have both safety nets. You have the caps and you have the repayment limit provision to protect borrowers.

This program is designed solely for students and their families. Let me repeat that. This program is designed solely for students and their families. Unlike the existing student loan program, it does not subsidize Federal health care or any other program. It is for the students and their families alone, period. Again, as my colleagues noted, a year ago we extended the student loan program. I was actually a member of the conference committee for MAP-21, the Department of Transportation reauthorization legislation. In that legislation we not only reauthorized the DOT budget, we also reauthorized Federal flood insurance as well.

In addition, we extended for 1 year the reauthorization of the student loan program. The reason we extended the student loan program for 1 year was so we could come up with a permanent solution, not so we could come up with another short-term extension but specifically so we could come up with a permanent solution. That is exactly what this is.

The bipartisan Student Loan Certainty Act provides that certainty for students, for families. It is a long-term permanent fix for our students. So I join with my colleagues and I call on

both sides of the aisle, all of us, to come together. Let's fix this for our students. Let's get it in place. Let's get it over to the House. I believe they will pass it as well. Let's have this ready for our students as they are preparing to enter college this fall.

With that, again, I thank everyone who has worked so hard on this legislation.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join my distinguished colleague from West Virginia in this discussion of an energy source that is vital to our Nation, and that is coal. North Dakota, like the great State of West Virginia, is a major coal-producing State and a major energy-producing State.

I think my distinguished colleague from West Virginia hit the nail on the head when he said we need a comprehensive energy plan in this country that is truly ``all of the above.'' We need to use all of our energy resources. And different States have different types of energy, and every type of energy has different strengths and weaknesses. The kind of energy we produce in one part of the country or the source of producing that energy is different than in another part of the country.

But the point is that if we take an ``all of the above'' approach, we can be truly energy independent in this country, but also think of the jobs and the economic growth that come with it. My colleague just went through how coal, for example, creates tremendous jobs, and he is right--good-paying jobs. So when we talk about an ``all of the above'' energy approach, we are talking not just about national security in terms of energy independence--not depending on the Middle East or Venezuela or these other places for our energy; that is national security--but it is also about economic growth and jobs and opportunity, a great living for families, a great way to earn and generate income for families across this Nation. That is what a real ``all of the above'' energy approach is about.

So when the administration talks about an ``all of the above'' energy plan, they have to not just talk about it, they have to do it. It is not just talking about it; it is making it happen. The way you make it happen is you have a clear legal, regulatory, and tax climate that encourages investment, does not hold it up, encourages investment, does not tie it up in redtape and regulation that prevents that investment. When you make that investment, what happens is you not only produce more energy, but you deploy these new technologies that do it with better environmental stewardship.

So let's go back to the issue of coal. My distinguished colleague is talking about coal in his State. Well, coal in North Dakota--we are a major producer of coal, and we are a powerhouse for energy in this country--not just coal but oil and gas. We do renewables, solar, biodiesel, ethanol. We do wind. We do all of them. But in the area of coal, we are one of the leaders in deploying these new technologies, and as a result we are one of 14 States in the Nation that meet all ambient air quality requirements nationally. Think about that. Here we are, we are a major coal-producing State, we are a major electricity- producing State, yet we are one of 14 States in the country that meet all ambient air quality requirements.

What am I saying? What I am saying is that when you empower that investment that gets that capital invested in these new technologies, you deploy that technology, you produce more energy, you create great jobs, you grow our economy, and you get better environmental stewardship.

I will.

Correct.

I would respond to my colleague, that is exactly what I am saying. Here we are, a major coal-producing State. We are one of 14 States that meet all ambient air quality requirements. We are No. 1 in surface reclamation, land reclamation--No. 1 in the country. We are rated right at the top in terms of our water and saving our lakes and protecting our water programs.

That is the point the Senator is making. That is the point I try to make all the time. With a States-first approach, States are the ones that can not only encourage that investment but take tremendous pains to make sure they are protecting the environment, growing the economy, and taking care of people who live in those States as well. That is why what we need to do to truly have an ``all of the above'' energy plan for this country is to empower States and empower that investment that we are talking about for all types of energy. Do not say ``all of the above'' as a Federal Government and then come up with regulations that prevent, block, preclude the very investment we need to deploy these technologies and produce energy from coal and other sources.

Again, my colleague makes a great point and a factual point; that is, what we are seeing happening as a result of the redtape and the regulations the administration is continuing to put forward and is proposing again to add to in its most recent policy pronouncement on energy--the net effect of that is to preclude investment, is to preclude not only developing new plants with the latest, greatest technologies that will help us take steps forward, exciting steps forward in clean coal technology, but it is forcing existing plants to shut down because the requirements are not feasible, they cannot be met with the current technology. As you shut those plants down, you not only lose the energy, lose the jobs, lose the economic growth here at home, but the coal then is still mined and now exported to other countries, where it is consumed in those other countries that have lower standards than we do.

And think--and think--if, instead, you empower the kind of investment in technology I am talking about in this country, other countries would follow us, so that then when they use their coal, they use these new technologies as well, and on a global basis you start to actually reduce emissions and produce better environmental stewardship.

Again, I would turn back to my colleague for his thoughts.

I would say to my colleague, he is exactly right. He hit the nail on the head. We are talking about clean coal technology and encouraging development in clean coal technology. But to do it, we have to have regulations that are attainable and feasible that encourage the kind of investment we are talking about.

The project the Senator is referring to is the Dakota Gasification Company, which has been operating now in our State successfully for years. It actually takes coal and converts it to synthetic natural gas--natural gas. That natural gas then goes into a pipeline, goes for all different uses, and meets the CO2 requirements the administration is talking about attaining right now because it is natural gas.

So it meets that natural gas standard. The coal, we burn. Then we capture the CO2, we compress it, put it in a pipeline, and it goes into the oilfields for a tertiary or secondary recovery. So we are also producing more oil for mature oilfields. That is an example of the technology and the capital investment and kind of regulatory environment that encourages technology development to not only produce more energy, more jobs, and growing the economy, but as my colleague is pointing out, better environmental stewardship.

That is how to get it done, not just in this country but globally. So the Senator is exactly right.

This is exactly the point. We need these kinds of projects. Work with us as States to empower that kind of development, not shut it off. The Senator is exactly right.

I would say to my distinguished colleague, I have been to West Virginia. It is an absolutely beautiful State. It is breathtaking, with its hills and valleys and bridges over rivers. It is just a gorgeous, beautiful State.

As my distinguished colleague was saying, what we are talking about is an opportunity. We have a real opportunity to do this and do it right, but we have to get the Federal Government to work with us, whether it is the great State of West Virginia, the great State of North Dakota, or across this country. And it is not just in coal. It is in all of these different types of energy. But you have to work with the States. You have to take a States-first approach that empowers them, that unleashes the entrepreneurial spirit of this country. That is what we need, not a big regulatory maze that nobody can get through. We are talking about common sense that empowers us to do things that can make a big difference for this country.

Mr. President, I would like to thank my distinguished colleague not only for his work on energy--he is already recognized as an energy leader in this body--but also most recently for student loans. He has taken a bipartisan lead on student loans that I believe has produced a great product, which I am pleased and proud to cosponsor, and on which I believe this body will come together next week and pass.

I think if we pass it, the House will take it up and pass it right away. It is so important for students, so important for our students and their families. It is just such a great example of what we can do working together. I think the good Senator from West Virginia does this so well. I thank him. Whether it is energy or student loans or just a lot of other issues, I want to express my deep appreciation and my fondness for working with him on these important issues.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 5 minutes on another very important issue.

I rise today to speak on an issue of great importance to our country, and one that we need to act on and we need to act on now. That is the farm bill. We in the Senate have passed a strong farm bill. It saves $24 billion to help reduce our debt and our deficit. It streamlines our farm programs to make them more efficient and more usable for our farmers and our ranchers. It ensures that our farmers and ranchers continue to have good risk management tools that they need to manage their operations, particularly enhanced crop insurance which is so important for our farmers and ranchers.

Now the House has also passed a farm bill and sent it over to us in the Senate. So we have it. I rise today to urge

my colleagues to join with me and form a conference committee with the House now to get this farm bill done for our farmers and ranchers--not just for our farmers and ranchers but for the American people. This really is about serving the American people, and it is about making sure that we continue to have the highest quality, lowest cost food supply in the world.

That means every single American benefits from good farm policy. We need to move on this bill. We need to act. The current farm bill expires September 30. We are already operating under a 1-year extension. It is time. We need to get going. We need to get this done. We need a long-term farm bill in place for our farmers and for our ranchers.

As I said right now, all Americans benefit from the highest quality, lowest cost food supply in the world. But the farm bill is more than just a food bill, it is a jobs bill as well. Right now in our country there is something on the order of 16 million jobs on a direct and indirect basis--more than 16 million jobs that depend on agriculture. So businesses large and small across this great Nation depend on agriculture.

In addition, agriculture has a favorable balance of trade for our country. Let me just give you a few of the statistics. This year it is estimated that we will export almost $140 billion worth of ag products. Think of all the dollars, the revenue that comes back to our country, the job creation, the economic growth, the employment, at a time when we need to create more jobs in this country, $140 billion that we export in food products all over the world supporting jobs and economic activity in this country.

A favorable balance of trade helps us in terms of our financial situation--a favorable balance of trade of almost $30 billion. In 2012, exports, more than $135 billion; in 2011, more than $137 billion in ag products from this country supporting jobs and economic activity in this country, and a favorable balance of trade of more than $40 billion.

Finally, agriculture is about more than just food. It is about fuel and fiber, and it is about national security. We do not have to depend on other countries for our food supply because our farmers and ranchers take care of it right here at home. So it is even a national security issue as well, making sure that we have the food supply that is dependable, nutritious, the highest quality, lowest cost in the world right here available to us at all times.

One other point I will make before I conclude; that is, our farmers and ranchers are stepping forward at a time when we have a deficit and a debt, and they are doing their part to help address this deficit and debt--$24 billion in savings, when the actual portion of the farm bill that actually deals with farmers is actually less than 20 percent of the whole bill.

Our farmers are stepping forward and helping the deficit with $24 billion in reduction. Just think for a minute. If we can do that across government, think of the impact it would have in terms of helping us to reduce this deficit and get our deficit and debt under control in this country.

It is time to move forward with the farm bill. The next step is to go to a conference committee with the House. We need to get that done. We need to get that done now and get a long-term farm bill in place for our farmers, for our ranchers, and for this great Nation.

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

Madam President, I wish to clarify for the esteemed Senator from Iowa that I intend to speak in support of the student loan certainty act which he may not be in favor of, so I wish to be clear.

I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 5 minutes, while preserving the 2 minutes remaining for the distinguished Senator from North Carolina prior to the vote at noon. I wish to be clear so the good Senator from Iowa understands as far as whether he wishes to object.

My understanding is to preserve the 2 minutes for the Senator from North Carolina.

Madam President, I rise to speak to the permanent solution that is being put forward on a bipartisan basis today, which is the Student Loan Certainty Act. Again, I wish to emphasize that this is a bipartisan solution. Senator Joe Manchin, a Democrat from West Virginia; Senator Lamar Alexander, a Republican from Tennessee; Senator Richard Burr, a Republican from North Carolina; and Senator Angus King, an Independent from Maine--I guess tripartisan, right? This is truly a bipartisan effort, including the support of Senator Tom Carper, a Democrat from Delaware, myself, and others. This is a bipartisan effort to come up with a permanent solution.

I have been listening to the floor debate and what everybody says over and over is we need a permanent solution, and that is exactly right.

A year ago I served on the conference committee for MAP 21 which is the authorization for the highway program. We included in that conference report an extension, a 1-year reauthorization, of the Federal student loan program. So we could do what? Put a permanent solution in place--not come here a year later and extend it again for a year.

So that is what the vote at noon is all about. It is yet another 1- year extension. We need to put a permanent

solution in place. Our bipartisan plan is simple and straightforward. It provides students with dependable low-cost financing on a long-term basis. We call it the Student Loan Certainty Act because it provides just that: certainty for our students and for our families, not another 1-year extension.

There has been a lot of discussion here, and it is easy to get confused. But let's go through it for a minute. How does it work? This is a simple straightforward plan. The plan would tie all student loan rates to the 10-year Treasury note to reflect current market and employment conditions.

Right now, that index rate--the 10-year Treasury note rate--is 1.8 percent. Then both subsidized and unsubsidized Stafford loans would be 1.85 percent over that rate. Graduate Stafford loans: 3.4 percent over that rate. PLUS loans--loans parents take out--4.4 percent over the 10- year Treasury note rate. Those rates are then fixed, locked for the life of the loan. The student knows that is a fixed rate then for the life of the loan, until it is paid off.

So let's compare the programs, compare the existing student loan program to what we are proposing. That is easy enough to do.

Subsidized Stafford loans. Right now they are actually at 6.8 percent because the existing program expired, didn't it. But under the old program they were at 3.4 percent for the subsidized Stafford loans. Under our proposal: 3.66 percent--3.4 percent; 3.66 percent--so it is about the same, isn't it.

Actually, those rates have gone to 6.8 percent because, again, we go year to year. This program expires so we are really bringing them down. But even if you assume it has not expired, it is about the same rate-- 3.66 percent versus 3.4 percent.

For unsubsidized Stafford rates, again, under our proposal, you get the same rate as for the subsidized student loan program--3.66 percent. That compares to 6.8 percent under the existing program. That is a big- time savings for 60 percent of college borrowers, big-time savings: 3.66 percent versus 6.8 percent. Which would you rather have? Big-time savings for 60 percent of the undergraduate borrowers.

Graduate student loan rates under our proposal: 5.21 percent versus 7.9 percent under the existing program; parent PLUS loans: 6.21 percent versus 7.9 percent under the existing program--in both cases, again, lower rates.

The consolidated loan rate remains at 8.25 percent. That is a cap. We keep that in place--8.25 percent--in essence, providing students and families with a cap, another safety feature.

There is also another protection measure in the bill. The good Senator from North Carolina just referred to it a minute ago. Under the income-based repayment level provision, student loan payments are limited to 15 percent of income. So your repayment, your payment amount is limited to 15 percent of your income, and after 25 years, if the loan is not paid off, the balance is forgiven. So you have both a cap and a repayment limit provision to protect borrowers.

Furthermore, this program is designed solely for students and their families. What do I mean by that? This program is solely for students and their families. Unlike the existing student loan program, it does not subsidize health care. The current program, in essence, provides a subsidy for Federal health care--the Affordable Care Act, ObamaCare. It provides a subsidy, and the students pay for it. Why would we do that? Why would we continue that?

What we are talking about is a vote at noon to extend the current plan. It is a 1-year extension, meaning we are going to be right back here 1 year from now doing the same thing. Furthermore, it is paid for with a tax increase on withdrawals from retirement accounts--a permanent tax increase to pay for a 1-year extension. That does not make any sense. What are we going to do a year from now to come up with the revenue to once again extend it? A permanent tax increase for a 1- year extension.

The third point is, why in the world are we using a student loan program to subsidize the Affordable Care Act, ObamaCare? That does not make any sense. Why would we do that?

Again, I come back to the point I started with, the point I made earlier that I think reflects on the debate and the discussion we have all had here: There is a desire to come together. I do not think we are very far away. I think this bipartisan measure is very close to something we can agree on. The good Senator from Iowa said himself he wants a permanent plan in place that takes care of students. I think we are close to doing that. I think the Student Loan Certainty Act provides that bipartisan framework we can now gather around. It may need some modification, but we can gather around it and get a permanent solution in place. I know that is what all of the Members of this body want. I ask my colleagues to join with us so we can get that done, and we can get it now--not extend it for a year and hope to get it done. Let's get it done for the benefit of our students across this great country and their families.

Madam President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Vermont, and I wish to particularly thank my distinguished colleague from the State of Tennessee for all of his work on this border surge amendment. That is what we are talking about: a border surge amendment. The amendment we have offered, Hoeven-Corker, is about securing the border first. As the good Senator from Tennessee described, that is absolutely the focus of what we are doing here.

We are willing to work with everybody on both sides of the aisle in this body and in the House to come up with legislation that secures the border. We believe that is what Americans want. That is what we are working so hard to do.

What I would like to start with, though, this morning in terms of my comments is this budget point of order we are going to be voting on in a few minutes. I would like to cite right from the Congressional Budget Office report. So I am going to just take facts, statistics right out of the CBO report because, as the good Senator from Tennessee explained a minute ago, so much of this is getting either misunderstood or misinterpreted. So let's get right to the CBO report, and let's look at exactly what it says.

According to CBO, it is clear that this legislation will reduce our deficit. The CBO report shows that in the first decade there is $197 billion provided from this legislation that we can use for deficit reduction--less, obviously, as Senator Corker just explained so well a minute ago, as we are putting significant resources into securing the border. So if you take out that additional $40 billion that our amendment costs to make sure we secure the border, to make sure we have the E-Verify system, to make sure we have electronic entry and exit at all of our international airports and seaports--deduct that $40 billion, that is $157 billion that we have available in the first decade and, according to CBO, in the second decade, $700 billion. So that is about $850 billion over the next two decades that is available to help us reduce the deficit, and that is after putting the five triggers in place that we provide in this legislation to secure the border first.

That means a comprehensive southern border strategy: 20,000 additional Border Patrol agents; 700 miles of fence in total--350 in addition to the 350 we have; a national mandatory E-Verify system; and electronic entry and exit identification must be in place, as I said, at all international airports and seaports. These things must be done upfront. These triggers must be met and illegal immigrants must be in provisional status for 10 years before anyone can get green cards, other than DREAMers or some blue card ag workers. So the cost of border enforcement is paid for, and we still have $850 billion available for deficit reduction.

So you might ask, well, why the budget point of order, then? Why the budget point of order when we are trying to get the debt and the deficit under control? Well, the budget point of order goes to the amount of dollars coming in on-budget and off-budget. What do we mean by off-budget? That means entitlement programs. So the amount of dollars coming in do not match up with what is exactly in the budget, now both on-budget and off-budget. But that is understandable, isn't it?

This is new significant legislation, so of course we have to adjust the on-budget and the off-budget to account for this $850 billion we did not have before. OK--almost $1 trillion now that we have. OK. So of course we have to make some adjustments.

So the real question here, the real question on this budget point of order is, Would you rather have $850 billion available to reduce the deficit or would you rather not have it? Because if you do not pass the legislation, you do not get the $850 billion in funds to help with deficit reduction. That is, if you will, kind of the bottom line here, isn't it?

Now, it is true, as I say, we have to adjust our budget categories, but overall, CBO scoring--after paying for an incredible amount of additional resources to secure the border first--$850 billion over the next two decades.

Also, this funding strengthens entitlement programs. Right. Why? Because the funding we are talking about is paid into Social Security and Medicare. CBO shows that in both the first decade and the second decade more is paid into those programs to make them solvent. But opponents say: Well, yes, sure. More is paid in, but those payers someday are going to get benefits, so they are going to take it out. But CBO shows that the amount being paid in is more than the benefits being paid out and that the amount is on a growth trajectory, not the reverse, meaning more is paid in in the second decade than the first decade, so we make those programs even more solvent, and it gets us on the right trajectory. That is why we should defeat the budget point of order--because, quite simply, we want the $850 billion to help reduce the deficit. That is the real issue we are dealing with.

Also, I want to take a minute again to address the GDP, GNP, wages, and unemployment. Again, I want to quote from the CBO because I really believe these things are getting misinterpreted.

GDP--gross domestic product--in the first decade grows 3.3 percent more with the legislation. In the second decade, it grows 5.4 percent more. OK. GNP--gross national product--per capita in the first 10 years, 0.7 of 1 percent less, it is true, in the first decade, but after that we get more GNP. So long term, more GDP, more GNP.

Unemployment. This talk about increasing unemployment--0.1 of 1 percent in the first 6 years, as you adjust. After that, there is no difference in unemployment.

The same thing with wages--initially 0.1 of 1 percent lower because you have immigrants coming in who earn a lower wage, but over time, in the second 10 years, wages go up. OK.

What is my point? The point is that for all of these categories, in all four of these categories, we do as well or better--as well or better--over the long run. Isn't that what we want?

I will summarize.

The first order of business for immigration reform is to secure the border. Americans want immigration reform--of that there is no doubt. But they want us to get it right, and that means securing the border first.

Our amendment, as the Senator from Tennessee said, is 119 new pages-- not 1,200. Madam President, 1,100 is in the base bill. That has been out here since May.

Our amendment secures the border with five tough provisions or triggers that must be met before green cards are allowed. We have talked about that. A comprehensive, high-tech plan on the southern border must be in place: 20,000 Border Patrol agents, a total of 700 miles of fence--things our colleagues on our side of the aisle have been asking for are here--a national, mandatory E-Verify system, electronic entry and exit at international airports and seaports. That is about securing the border first. That is what this amendment is about. It is objective, and it is verifiable. That is what the technology on the border--$4.5 billion in technology for sensors, radars drones, helicopters, planes--that is what it is all about, so we know we have the border secured.

So we ask our colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join with us. Let's rise up. Let's meet this challenge for the American people, and let's address border security. That is what this legislation does.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, I thank the Senator from Vermont.

Americans want immigration reform, but they want border security first, and that is exactly what this amendment does. It secures the border with five tough provisions or triggers that must be met--that must be met--before green cards are allowed. Those five triggers are: a comprehensive southern border strategy that must be deployed and operational, 20,000 additional Border Patrol agents, a total of 700 miles of fence, a national mandatory E-Verify system must be in place, and electronic entry and exit identification must be in place at all international airports and seaports.

Simply put, this is about making sure we secure the border, and we do it in an objective and verifiable way.

I want to thank all of my cosponsors on this legislation, and turn to the good Senator from Tennessee and thank him for his work.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized for up to 10 minutes under Senator Leahy's time.

Mr. President, I rise today to address comprehensive immigration reform and to talk specifically about the Hoeven-Corker amendment.

The Hoeven-Corker amendment is to secure the border. Besides myself and Senator Corker, this is bipartisan legislation that has 11 Republican and 4 Democratic cosponsors. This is all about securing the border first. This is a first step for comprehensive immigration reform, and that is what we are seeking to do.

I come to the Senate floor today to address some of the misperceptions that have already been circulating about our legislation. Throughout the weekend some of the pundits and others have put out information that is incorrect with regard to the Hoeven-Corker amendment to the new immigration bill. As the old saying goes, people are certainly entitled to their opinions, and we respect all opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts. So I want to separate some of the myths or misperceptions from the facts in regard to our amendment.

Let me say at the outset we welcome the debate, and we welcome the opportunity to provide information. This is truly about coming up with legislation that wins the support of the American people as well as bipartisan support in the Senate, the House, in this Congress, and that is what it takes to meet a challenge of the magnitude of immigration reform. So I will clear up some of the misperceptions or myths that have been circulating and put forth the facts.

Myth No. 1: Somehow people have not had time to read this 1,200-page amendment--and somehow this myth keeps getting repeated. Well, the fact is it is not 1,200 pages. This new amendment is about 120 pages that have been added to the underlying bill. So, yes, all told it is 1,200 because 1,100 pages is the existing bill, and we are adding an additional 120 pages. The underlying bill--the 1,100 pages--has been out there since May for people to read. The roughly 120 pages right here is it. This is the new material. This is 120 pages. We are adding 120 pages, which I think somebody could read in a short amount of time.

This was filed at about 2 p.m. on Friday, and it has been available to all of the Members. They had all of Friday to read the 120 pages. This is the new material--not 1,200 pages. They had all of Friday to read it, all of Saturday to read it, all of Sunday to read it, and today until now to read it. If there is anybody who still hasn't read it, there is plenty of time to read it before the vote at 5:30 p.m. today.

There is 120 pages of new material. Let's be clear about that. There is no purpose for folks to misunderstand or to create misunderstanding. Why would anyone do that? Why would anyone want to say there are 1,200 pages of new material when there are 120 pages of new material? Well, that is the first myth.

Myth No. 2: The southern border fence does not need to be completed before people are eligible for green cards. That is the second thing that is not correct. What is the fact? Because that is wrong. The fact: The trigger explicitly states that at least 700 miles of fencing along the southern border must be built before individuals can receive a green card. A subsequent provision says DHS may decide where that fence gets constructed, but the trigger language is clear: We have to build 700 miles of fence before anyone gets a green card.

The southern border is roughly 2,000 miles from Brownsville, TX, to San

Diego, CA. A minimum of 700 miles of fence has to be built before anyone can get a green card, and they have to go into what is called provisional status for 10 years as well.

As for this provision, the Secretary of Homeland Security does have some discretion to decide where on that 2,000-mile border they are going to put the 700 miles of fence. That makes the most sense, doesn't it? Shouldn't we put the fence where it does the most good? Why would anyone try to say the subsequent provision--which says they can put the fence where they need to put it and where it does the most good--get construed to somehow mean we don't have to have 700 miles of fence? It clearly says we have to have 700 miles of fence.

Again, let's make sure people understand what is in the bill rather than confusing them about what is in the bill. It seems to me we can debate this, and we should debate it, but let's debate it on the facts, not on creating misperceptions.

Myth No. 3: Congress will choose not to fund the southern border security in the amendment. Congress will choose not to fund it. Well, the whole law says, in fact, they do have to fund it, and the fact is the bill is fully funded. It is funded upfront. The amendment adjusts the funding for border security by $38 billion, and that is over a 10- year period. So it is between $3 billion and $4 billion a year we spend to truly secure the border. Americans want the border secure, so that is what we do. That cost is over a 10-year period.

Under this legislation, that money--upfront--is authorized and appropriated and put in the comprehensive immigration reform trust fund. Furthermore, that funding is paid for with immigration fees, fines, and surcharges. So the illegal immigrants pay for the border security. I think that is something Americans should understand, and I think it is something they believe should happen. That is the way it should be done.

Again, my question is: Why is the misperception going around that somehow this thing isn't funded or will not get funded when this amendment specifically says it is funded upfront, and the money is appropriated into the trust fund? That is what it says in the roughly 120 pages that constitute the new legislation in this amendment.

Myth No. 4: The amendment puts the American taxpayer on the hook for $38 billion. I think I covered this one pretty well just a minute ago, but I have additional information to make sure people understand.

CBO says the underlying immigration bill will reduce the deficit by $197 billion in the next 10 years and by $690 billion during the second decade. That is almost $1 trillion in deficit reduction over the next two decades. The total cost of security measures added by the Hoeven- Corker amendment is--as I said just a minute ago--about $38 billion. The base bill designates $8 billion to security measures, bringing the total costs of security measures for the bill as amended to a total of $46 billion. The U.S. taxpayer will be more than made whole with the visa fees and by the $458 billion in additional tax revenue that results in the large deficit reduction.

Again, the point I made before: By bringing illegals out of the shadows, making them pay fines, fees, and taxes, we will generate the revenue which not only reduces the deficit, but way more than pays to secure the border. Again, Americans want border security first, which is what this amendment is about.

Myth No. 5: The new border patrol agents will never be hired or deployed. Fact: The amendment mandates that 20,000 more Border Patrol agents be hired and deployed before individuals are eligible for a green card. Let me read that again. The amendment mandates that 20,000 more Border Patrol agents are hired and deployed before individuals are eligible for a green card. That is in addition to the almost 20,000 Border Patrol agents who are on the border now. That is a total of 40,000 Border Patrol agents on the border.

I have heard some of our Members talk about how they want 40,000 Border Patrol agents on the border. That is what this does. It requires that it be done before anyone gets a green card.

Myth No. 6: Section 2302 says if a person overstays their visa in the future, they can still apply for a green card and become a citizen. Fact: That is just plain false. If a person overstays their visa, a removal proceeding must be initiated unless they are in a special legal status because they cannot return to their country due to conditions such as an environmental disaster or a humanitarian crisis.

Myth No. 7: The amendment is only about the border and it does nothing to address the visa overstay issue. Fact: Visa overstays currently account for 40 percent of those unlawfully present in our country. This is an important issue. The underlying bill improves the identification of overstays through a fully implemented entry-exit system.

Our amendment goes a step further by mandating the initiation of removal proceedings for at least 90 percent of visa overstays--holding DHS accountable. The amendment also requires extensive reporting to Congress every 6 months to facilitate oversight of this important overstay issue.

Myth No. 8: The 20,000 additional Border Patrol agents won't begin to be deployed until 2017. Fact: Under the Hoeven-Corker amendment, the Border Patrol must deploy 20,000 additional agents before registered provisional immigrants can obtain a green card. The only reference in the bill to the year 2017, as it relates to the deployment of border security resources, is to a mandate on DHS that says the 3,500 Customs and Border Protection officers assigned to points of entry must be hired by and must be in place by 2013. This is a positive provision that will ensure additional Customs and Border Protection officers are in place as quickly as possible, and in no way delays the deployment of the additional 20,000 Border Patrol agents.

There are other misperceptions circulating regarding the legislation. That is why Senator Corker and I put out a fact sheet to rebut them. We do it as simply and as straightforwardly as we can. We say: OK, look. They are saying there are 1,200 new pages. No, there are 120 pages, and on we go down the list.

So I hope people understand we are trying to foster understanding. We want people to understand this. We want people to know what is in it. Again, we are, to the very best of our ability, trying to approach this comprehensive immigration reform issue, we believe, the right way, which means secure the border first. That is what this amendment is about. It is about securing the border first, and we do it as objectively and in as verifiable a way as we can.

We ask our colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join us in rising and meeting this incredible challenge we face for the benefit of the American people and the future of our country.

Thank you, Mr. President. With that, I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, we have now filed the Hoeven-Corker border security amendment. I believe the first order of business for immigration reform is to secure the border. Americans want immigration reform. Of that there is no doubt. But they want us to get it right. That means first and foremost securing the border.

I thank the distinguished Senator from the great State of Tennessee for his ceaseless efforts and untiring work to really craft an amendment that puts

border security first. That is exactly what we have worked to do.

I also thank the cosponsors we have been able to bring onboard for this effort. They include Senator John McCain, Senator Lindsey Graham, Senator Marco Rubio, Senator Jeff Flake, Senator Kelly Ayotte, Senator Dean Heller, Senator Orrin Hatch, Senator Lisa Murkowski, and Senator Mark Kirk. But also, on a bipartisan basis, we have Democratic Senators as well: Senator Joe Manchin, Senator Mark Pryor, Senator Mark Begich, and Senator Joe Donnelly.

We thank all of these cosponsors who show this is a bipartisan effort to secure the border as a first step in comprehensive immigration reform. That is what this is all about.

We provide five significant criteria--some have called them triggers, requirements, conditions--that must be met to ensure the border is secure before there are any green cards. Before illegal immigrants can get to a permanent legal status--a green card status--we have tough requirements that must be met to ensure the border is secured.

First and foremost, it is a comprehensive southern border security plan. It is $3.2 billion worth of technology, planes, unmanned aircraft, sensors--all on the border, spelled out in this legislation-- that ensures we have a secure border. That must be met before there are any green cards, and that is where we start; in addition, 20,000 more Border Patrol agents on the border to not only detect people trying to come across but to turn them back; also, 700 miles of fencing on the border. These are things Republicans have repeatedly asked for as part of securing the border. We have put them right in the bill.

In addition, we have to have a mandatory national E-Verify system in place and operating so that we enforce workplace law, so we not only have a secure border, but we take away the incentive to come here illegally because you will not be able to get a job. That, combined with a guest worker program that works, means, then, when people come, they come legally, and they go back home.

Finally, we have an electronic entry-exit system at all of the international airports and seaports.

All of those things must be met before legal permanent resident status, before green card status. This is about securing the border first.

Again, I want to particularly thank my distinguished colleague from Tennessee Senator Corker for all his hard efforts, as well as all of our cosponsors on this legislation. We are reaching out to everybody, and we want to work together on a bipartisan basis.

This is about securing the border first and doing comprehensive immigration reform and doing it right.

With that, I yield the floor and again note the tremendous efforts of my distinguished colleague, the Senator from Tennessee.

I appreciate the comments of the distinguished Senator from Mississippi.

I rise to speak on immigration reform and to discuss an amendment I will be introducing to S. 744, the comprehensive immigration reform legislation the Senate body is carefully considering and debating. That amendment is the Hoeven-Corker border security amendment. It is being finalized, and I plan to introduce it this afternoon, along with the Senator from the great State of Tennessee, Senator Bob Corker, who is here with me. I want to thank him for the tremendous work he has done on this legislation. He has been absolutely inspirational to work with, a great leader, and somebody who is working to do immigration reform the right way, to get a bipartisan solution that truly addresses the challenges we face with immigration reform and to get it done the right way.

In addition to Senator Corker and myself, other sponsors include Senator John McCain, Senator Lindsey Graham, Senator Marco Rubio, Senator Jeff Flake, Senator Kelly Ayotte, Senator Dean Heller, and others who are joining us on this legislation. I believe a number of them will be down here to provide their comments as well.

I believe the first order of business for immigration reform is to secure the border. I will repeat that. I believe the first order of business for immigration reform is to secure the border. Americans want immigration reform, of that there is no doubt, but they want us to get it right. That means, first and foremost, securing the border.

In 1986, President Ronald Reagan and the Congress granted legalized status to between 3 and 4 million illegal immigrants. The intent was to once and for all resolve the illegal immigration problem, but obviously it didn't. Here we are today with more than 11 million illegal immigrants in this country. Here we are today with a border that has still not been secured.

Ironically, illegal immigrants continue to come into our country because we have not secured the border at the same time--at the same time--our immigration laws do not meet the needs of our modern-day workforce for STEM-trained workers, other specialty and high-demand areas. In fact, one of the strengths of the underlying bill, the underlying legislation drafted by the Gang of 8 on a bipartisan basis, along with amendments that have already been added in committee, one of the strengths is it includes provisions that will help us with our workforce needs. These provisions were adopted from legislation myself and other Senators fostered, such as legislation led by the esteemed Senator from Texas John Cornyn, which would allow an increased number of college graduates, postgraduate degreed individuals with degrees in STEM--science, technology, engineering, math-trained individuals--and other highly skilled, highly trained people who could stay in this country. These are people we need to help grow our economy and to help create jobs.

We also want people who can bring capital and job-creating opportunities to come to our country. I believe the underlying bill has captured these concepts. The immigration innovation legislation I was proud to cosponsor with Senators Hatch, Klobuchar, Coons, and others is included in this bill.

We are not done. We must do more to secure the border in this legislation. That is exactly what we are offering here today. It is a very straightforward way to secure our border and to do so before allowing a pathway to legal permanent residency for those who came here illegally.

Furthermore, it will ensure that we do not repeat the error we made before, failure to secure our border while at the same time fixing our immigration laws. It builds on what is already in the underlying bill, and it provides objective, verifiable standards and metrics to do so.

Our legislation will provide significantly more resources to secure the border, more manpower, more fencing, more technology. Those resources must

be fully deployed and operational before green card status is allowed. The legislation provides five specific conditions which must be met before anyone in RPI status, registered provisional immigrant status, can be adjusted or transitioned to LPR, lawful permanent resident status, green cards.

These conditions are: First, we are including a comprehensive southern border security plan right in the legislation. This is a $3.2 billion high-tech plan. The plan is detailed border sector by border sector, and it includes combinations of conventional security infrastructure such as observation towers, fixed and mobile camera systems, helicopters, planes, and other physical surveillance equipment to secure the border.

The plan also includes high-tech tools such as mobile surveillance systems, seismic imaging, infrared ground sensors, and unmanned aerial systems equipped with infrared radar cameras, VADER radar, and long- range thermal-imaging cameras. The Secretary of Homeland Security, together with the Secretary of Defense and the Comptroller General of the United States, the GAO, must certify to the Congress that this comprehensive southern border security strategy is deployed and operational. That means in place and operating, other than routine maintenance. That is the first requirement before the adjustment to LPR status.

Second, DHS must deploy and maintain 20,000 additional Border Patrol agents on the southern border. That is in addition to the number of Border Patrol agents on the border now, which is right at about 20,000. So we will double the number of armed Border Patrol agents to detect and turn back those individuals who would try to cross our border illegally.

Third, DHS must build 700 miles of fencing. That is double the amount required in the underlying bill, which calls for 350 miles of fencing. So 700 miles of fencing--that compares to about 42 miles of fencing we have in place right now.

Fourth, the Secretary of Homeland Security must verify that the mandatory E-Verify system has been implemented to enforce workplace laws so that illegal immigrants are not employed.

Fifth, the electronic entry-exit identification system must be in place at all international airports and seaports in the United States where U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers are currently deployed.

So these are the requirements. These are the requirements, and they must be met before lawful permanent residency is allowed. No green cards, other than for DREAMers and blue card ag workers, until these requirements are met.

Once again, simply put, we must secure the border first. That is what Americans demand, and that is what we must do to get comprehensive immigration reform right. That is what this legislation does, and it does it with objective and verifiable methods. We ask our colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join with us and pass this legislation.

Madam President, at this point I would like to turn to my distinguished colleague from Tennessee, whom I want to thank again for his tremendous work, which is ongoing. I can't say how much I appreciate his good efforts and his good faith on a bipartisan basis. I turn to him now for his comments as well as to then enter into a colloquy with our colleagues who have worked so hard and played such a leadership role in this legislation.

Well, I appreciate the esteemed Senator from Arizona again emphasizing these points. That is what this is all about. This is about securing the border. And all of the things the Senator from Arizona just identified are in the bill. They are requirements. The plan itself, this $3.2 billion comprehensive southern border strategic plan, is detailed border sector by border sector. And again, this puts everybody in the same place saying that we are going to secure the border first because there are no green cards until we secure the border.

I would like to add that it is not just all these things that we are putting on the border and that we are requiring that these things be in place and certified and operating before we go to green card status, but also it is about eliminating the incentive to try to get across the border. When we put E-Verify in place and we have a proper guest worker program, we take away the incentive to try to get across the border. So we secure the border, but we also take away the incentive to come across because someone can come across legally through the guest worker program. And if they come across illegally, we are going to find them and they can't get a job. So it is both. That is what we mean when we talk about comprehensive border security and a comprehensive approach.

I would respond to the good Senator from Arizona and say, look, all of the ideas that have been brought forward to secure the border we have worked to include in this package. We have tried in a bipartisan way to listen to everybody and say: What can we do? What can we put on the border to secure the border? We have tried to bring all those resources to bear.

To the good Senator from Arizona I would say we want to bring in our Senator from Florida, who has worked so hard, along with the Senator from Arizona, to provide truly the right kind of leadership for comprehensive reform on a bipartisan basis. I also want to reach out to the good Senator from Texas. A lot of the ideas in this bill came from legislation he put forward. Look, this is about all of us putting our ideas into securing this border. We have tried to include everybody's ideas in this effort. That is exactly what we did.

I would yield for the Senator from Texas.

Madam President, I appreciate very much the question from the Senator from the great State of Texas. I thank him for the work he did and the work we did together, and the fact that we absolutely tried here to build on concepts the Senator put forward. It is not the same, but we tried to build on those concepts.

In terms of the actual border security plan, the comprehensive southern

border security strategy, the $3.2 billion plan that includes technology, helicopters, planes, all these different things I detailed, that is exactly what the Senator was talking about in his legislation. Physically we do deploy all the things the Senator laid out in his legislation, and then we add to it 20,000 agents, and an additional 350 miles of fence on top of the 350 miles of fence called for in the underlying bill. We put all of the physical resources out there, and then we add all of the fencing and all the manpower to make sure we accomplish exactly what the Senator was laying out. In terms of the trigger, all those things are triggers before going to a green card.

It is different in that the discussion was, How do we set up verifiable metrics? And that is what we are doing by clearly delineating all these things we are putting in, and then we actually add to what the Senator had in the legislation.

And if I may respond to that. Again, that makes my point.

I say to the Senator from Texas, I want to thank him for his work. That is a great example of how we have built on the foundation he laid. That was a great example. He asked for 5,000 Border Patrol agents and we got 20,000. So this is a great example. It is all paid for, and this is important.

That is where I am going right now.

Remember, in the CBO score, in the first 10 years, $197 billion. We use about $30 billion to make sure that border is secure. But overall, this bill with this amendment creates border security and more than pays for itself.

Here is the other point. Remember, in that CBO score it showed $197 billion in terms of revenue creation. So we used $30 billion of that to add the border agents and secure the border.

But here is the other thing we have to look at in that CBO score. It said without our amendment, with the underlying bill, we would have 7 million more illegal immigrants in this country in 10 years. Without the bill we would have 10 million more. So what does that say? It didn't get the job done on border security. That is exactly why we are adding this amendment, and it will get the job done.

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

Madam President, I rise to speak about S. Res. 154. S. Res. 154 is a resolution I submitted last month with Senator Blumenthal. It calls for fair and free elections in Iran and points out that the Iranian regime is fundamentally illegitimate.

Americans believe in the power of elections. We believe voting means something. The rest of the world also understands and respects that elections are powerful events. Most countries that hold elections want to channel the will of their people into the governing of their country.

The Supreme Leader of Iran believes in the power of elections too, but he does not respect them. He himself has never been elected, and he knows a free election might threaten his power base. So he ensures that a truly free election is impossible for the Iranian people.

In past elections fraud has been rampant. The government has cracked down on public dissent and moved against media sources that are not officially sanctioned.

But most of all, Iran's Supreme Leader has developed the unfortunate habit of selecting which candidates may be permitted to run for office.

Hundreds of candidates were prohibited from running for Parliament last year and hundreds more were denied the right to run for President this year. Apparently, the Supreme Leader believes there is too much at stake to risk anyone other than a handpicked candidate to prevail at the voting booth.

The restrictions on candidates are so strict it almost seems it would be easier for the Supreme Leader to cancel the elections altogether and just appoint a President. But the Supreme Leader wants the legitimacy conferred by elections as badly as he wants to retain full control of the Iranian regime.

There are lots of analysts in the United States and elsewhere who attempt to understand which way Iran is going based on which candidates stand for election and which ones prevail. Some candidates are judged to be reformers, others conservatives, and so forth.

But this analysis gives the Iranian regime more legitimacy than it deserves. Because dissent is stifled, because candidates are blocked for political reasons, and, most of all, because the Supreme Leader holds all of the levers of power, Iran's regime cannot be seen to have legitimacy.

Consider that the current Supreme Leader came to power in 1989. He has never been held accountable to the people of Iran, but he is in full control of the country. He controls the defense and foreign policy outright.

He has the power to veto anything that comes from Parliament. He vets candidates for Parliament, and he helps choose the members of the Assembly of Experts and the Guardian Council--the very governing bodies that formally oversee the Supreme Leader. Simply put, power in Iran begins and ends with the Supreme Leader.

On June 14, Iran will elect a new President. While much will be said about who wins that election, we already know what the outcome will be. The Supreme Leader will continue to dominate Iran, run roughshod over the rights of the people of Iran, and deny the Iranian people the ability to chart their own future.

For this reason I urge my colleagues to join Senator Blumenthal and myself in supporting S. Res. 154. Our resolution points out, first, that Iran has a terrible track record of fraudulent and illegitimate elections; two, that Iran crushes the right to free speech and to a free press; and, three, that true power in Iran remains firmly in the grip of the Supreme Leader.

Our resolution calls on Iran to correct these injustices. It makes clear that the United States will not view Iran's regime as a legitimate expression of the will of its people unless and until its elections are free and truly fair, until those at the highest level of power are made accountable.

Holding autocracy responsible is important not only to the Iranian people but to the people of the world at large.

We face an enormous challenge in trying to get Iran to abandon its nuclear program, and we would be dangerously mistaken if we believed that the winner of the June 14 election will somehow represent the Iranian people.

We must remember--and remind the world--that if Iran continues to work toward a nuclear weapon, it will be because that is the course plotted and pursued by the Supreme Leader. The June 14 elections, unfortunately, will not change that reality.

I hope my colleagues will join us in standing with the Iranian people and against an unelected and illegitimate regime bent on a dangerous course of action.

I hope we can adopt this resolution to demonstrate that we are not fooled by elections that give voters false choices and install leaders determined to threaten the security of other nations.

Only true and fair elections that hold Iran's leaders accountable to the Iranian people will produce a government that deserves to be seen by the world as legitimate. I call on my Senate colleagues to send that message loud and clear to Tehran.

I now yield the floor to my esteemed colleague from the State of Connecticut who is joining me in this resolution, Senator Blumenthal. I wish to thank him for his support of this resolution and for his willingness to not only speak up but to stand up for the people of Iran.

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

I want to take several minutes to respond to some of the comments that were made here in regard to the farm bill, and specifically the Sugar Program. We have got a vote coming up.

I thank my colleague. I do want to respond to some comments that were made in regard to the Sugar Program and the cost of sugar for American consumers. It is very important to understand that the price of sugar in the United States is actually less than the international price. So because of the Sugar Program we have, American consumers benefit. Again, I want to reiterate that point.

Also I want to express how important it is to understand that we have low-cost producers in this country who are precluded from selling their sugar in markets such as the European Union because of tariffs and restrictions. As an individual who strongly supports international commerce and trade, on many of these issues I am down here talking about how we want to continue to expand our ability to export. I believe that. But at the same time, we have to make sure our companies and our farmers, our ranchers and our producers, particularly when we are talking about a farm bill, are treated fairly.

We have a situation where they operate internationally and they are precluded from many markets throughout the world, even though they are low-cost producers. That is what our Sugar Program is designed to do, to try to level that playing field. It does so effectively. The Sugar Program has cost this country nothing over the last decade. In fact, consumers in this country benefit from lower sugar prices than the international price, not higher prices.

I yield the floor.

I appreciate the opportunity to join my esteemed colleague from the great State of South Carolina in support of S. Res. 65, expressing our strong support for our close friend and ally, Israel.

This resolution right up front says--I want to read from the subheading in the resolution--``Strongly supports the full implementation of the United States and international sanctions on Iran, and urging the President to continue to strengthen enforcement of sanctions legislation.''

This is very important. I want to buttress a comment made by the good Senator from South Carolina, and that is through Kirk-Menendez and other legislation, we have provided authority for the administration to put the strongest possible sanctions in place against Iran to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. We need to do it. We need to stand with Israel. We need to support our ally. This is not just about Israel, this is about security for the United States. This is about preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.

Essentially what these sanctions do is they provide any country or company that buys oil from Iran cannot do business with our banking system. Think about that. Countries that buy oil from Iran would not be able to transact with the United States and U.S. companies. That would preclude them from buying Iranian oil.

Okay. Think about that. If Iran cannot sell its oil, it has no revenue. If it has no revenue, it is forced to stop its efforts to build a nuclear weapon. So the point is this: We cannot only have sanctions. What we are trying to do in this legislation is not only express support for Israel, again as the Senator

from South Carolina pointed out, but encourage and support the administration in completely enforcing the strongest possible sanctions against Iran so we do not have to go to the option of a military strike to take out their nuclear weapon capability. That is what this is all about. This is bipartisan--as the Senator said, 91 cosponsors. This is about saying we can get this done but we have got to impose these sanctions as strongly as we can. We have got to do it now.

Madam President, I rise to speak on the farm bill.

I rise to speak on behalf of the Agriculture Reform, Food, and Jobs Act of 2013, a 5-year farm bill. This bill saves more than $24 billion to help reduce our deficit and our debt, it streamlines farm programs to make them more efficient, and it ensures that our farmers and ranchers continue to have good risk management tools, particularly crop insurance.

It is vitally important to so many facets of our national interests. It is important to food, of course, but also to fuel, to fiber, to rural development, agriculture research, and many other areas. It touches the life of every single American in some of the most basic ways.

This year the farm bill is moving through the Senate because we have already debated and passed more than 90 percent of this bill in the last session. A lot of this bill we worked on very hard in the last session and passed it through this body with a big bipartisan vote.

Unfortunately, the House was not able to pass their version so we were not able to go to conference and finish the job. This year we need to do that.

This farm bill, again, 90 percent-plus we voted on in this body last session. We had a big bipartisan vote to pass it. We need to do that again. We need to get into conference with the House, and we need to get this done for farmers and ranchers and for the benefit of all Americans.

Last week we passed a bill out of the Senate Agriculture Committee, on which I serve, where I had the opportunity to help craft it--again, building on the product that we put together last year when we voted it out of committee with a big bipartisan vote. The House also passed its version of a farm bill out of their Agriculture Committee last week. They are looking to bring their bill to the House floor in June. We are hopeful they will pass it in June, but we need to be ready. We need to have ours done. I think we can show real leadership on this issue and be ready to get into conference with the House and get this important work done.

The Senate version we passed supports our farmers and ranchers in substantive and sensible ways. It gives them the necessary risk management tools and ensures that Americans, all Americans, continue to enjoy the highest quality, lowest cost food supply, not just in the world but in the history of the world.

Among the provisions of the commodity title is the no-cost Sugar Program. I wish to take just a few minutes to talk about the Sugar Program and its importance in the context of this farm bill. The Sugar Program warrants discussion because some Members--I believe certainly with the best of intentions--want to actually weaken this vitally important program. But weakening our current sugar policy would accomplish nothing. In fact, it would subject our producers, consumers, and industries to a distorted world market. Further, it would threaten more than 140,000 jobs in 22 States that depend on a vibrant, competitive sugar industry.

The world's sugar market is not a free market. Make no mistake, it is not a free market in any conventional sense of the term. I can tell you now, foreign governments heavily protect and subsidize their sugar producers. For example, Brazil spends between $2 and $3 billion per year to subsidize its producers. Mexico literally owns one-fifth of its industry and subsidizes the rest.

Our sugar farmers, along with the rest of America's farmers and ranchers, have told foreign competitors, time and again, we are ready to compete in a truly freely market, but we will not and must not unilaterally disarm, nor will dismantling the Sugar Program result in lower costs to consumers and American businesses. Once you factor in transportation costs, the world price of sugar is higher than the price in the United States.

Sugar prices are not only higher in Brazil and Mexico, they are higher worldwide. If we do away with sugar policy altogether and subject producers strictly to a distorted global market, what we will see is not lower prices but rather extreme volatility in the global sugar market.

Not only are sugar prices lower in the United States and elsewhere, but the cost of sugar in most products is tiny. For example, in a Hershey's chocolate bar it is less than 2 percent of the cost. Further, it should be noted that sugar prices have fallen by more than 50 percent in the last 2 years, but candy prices at the store are not seeing the same level of reduction at all.

The truth is, if consumers are paying higher costs, it is because of labor and health care costs in the United States, not because of the cost of sugar.

For 10 years now, sugar policy has operated at zero cost to the American taxpayer because our farmers are efficient and competitive and because American sugar policy has always made sure they were playing on a level playing field. As a result, consumers in

this country enjoy more affordable sugar than elsewhere in the world and American consumers enjoy a safe and reliable homegrown source. The bottom line is that sugar policy is cost-effective and fair and it should be retained in the commodity title of the farm bill.

But I would like to turn, again, to the broader legislation. Good farm policy benefits every single American. As I said, we have the lowest cost, highest quality food supply in the world thanks to our farmers and ranchers and thanks to good farm policy. How do we put a value on our safe, abundant, nutritious, dependable food supply? It is invaluable. By any standard it is invaluable. Just consider the benefits that this farm bill provides.

The farm bill is a job creator and it helps our economy. Agriculture supports 16 million jobs in the United States and contributes billions of dollars to the national economy. Year in and year out we sell more food and fiber than we buy from abroad. Further, American agriculture produces a financial surplus. Through relentless innovation, best practices, and good stewardship of the land, American agriculture creates a positive balance of trade.

The farm bill saves money to help reduce the deficit and the debt. Think how important that is.

The 2013 farm bill, like the farm bill we passed last year, provides more than $24 billion in savings--more than is required by sequestration--to help address the Nation's deficit and debt. Farmers and ranchers are stepping up and doing their part.

The farm bill also provides a strong market-based safety net for the producers. The safety net in the 2013 farm bill focuses on enhanced crop insurance; that is what they have asked for and that is the focus--not direct payments. Direct payments are limited. It enhances crop insurance with the inclusion of a new product called the supplemental coverage option, SCO. The SCO enables purchasers to purchase a supplemental policy beyond their individual farm-based policy, thereby creating an additional level of risk management.

The bill also includes the Agriculture Risk Coverage or ARC Program that provides assistance for shallow loss or multiple-year losses, which again helps our farmers to better manage risk. They are business people and they need to manage their risks.

Let's not forget the farm bill strengthens our national security. Our country doesn't have to depend on other countries for our food supply-- countries that don't necessarily share our interests or values--and that makes us safer. The fact is we are secure in that most basic, vital necessity--our food supply.

The farm bill is about so many things that are important to the people of America. This is about all Americans. Again, I say good farm policy benefits every single American. We have the highest quality, lowest cost food supply in the world thanks to our farmers, ranchers, and good farm policy.

This is about 16 million jobs in this country which are supported by agriculture. This is about a positive balance of trade which helps build our economy. This is about $24 billion in savings where agriculture is stepping up and not only doing its share but more than its share to help with the deficit and debt. In the most fundamental ways, a good farm bill makes America stronger, safer, and more secure. We need to pass this farm bill.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Mississippi for his kind comments and also for his leadership on the Agriculture Committee as our ranking member. I wanted to express my appreciation.

With that, I yield the floor.

Madam President, I understand that my amendment has already been handed in. I will point out that I have a modification at the desk.

This is a very simple amendment. It provides that the Corps of Engineers cannot charge a State or a tribe or municipality--

Madam President, I thank my colleague from California.

I would also like to thank both Senator Boxer and Senator Vitter for their work on this amendment. I appreciate it very much.

This is a very simple amendment. It says that the Corps of Engineers cannot charge a State fees for water when it violates the State's water rights. It affects municipalities and tribes as well. We have made sure it does not score under the CBO rules.

This amendment has strong bipartisan support--Senator Thune, Senator Heitkamp, Senator Baucus, and Senator Johnson. This does not affect the master manual on the Missouri River or any of the authorized uses, and I wanted to emphasize that.

Again, this is a very simple amendment. It ensures that States rights are properly protected, and I encourage a ``yes'' vote.

Madam Chair, I ask for a voice vote.

Madam President, again, I thank both of the managers of this bill.