John Hoeven

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. 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.

Mr. HOEVEN. 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.

Mr. HOEVEN. 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.

Mr. HOEVEN

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. HOEVEN. 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. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. 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.

Mr. HOEVEN

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. HOEVEN. 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.

Mr. HOEVEN. 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.

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. 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.

Mr. HOEVEN. 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.

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

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. Madam Chair, I ask for a voice vote.

Mr. HOEVEN. 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--

Mr. HOEVEN. 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.

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

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I wish to thank my colleague from South Dakota and turn to my colleague from North Dakota for any final thoughts before we yield the floor.

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. HOEVEN. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. HOEVEN. I thank the Senator from South Dakota for joining, and he is absolutely right. The cost to the States is significant. In actuality, the scoring number is reduced because the probability of them getting it is so remote. As I mentioned earlier, they are flying in the face of well-established water rights the States have. So once they assign the probability they would lend to it, obviously that reduces the amount that gets scored. Once again, it shows they are trying to impose a fee where they have no right to do it, so it did create some scoring issue that it really never should. The fact is the litigation would far outweigh the score that CBO has put on it, both to the Federal Government and to the respective States. In the end there would be no fees because there is no right to assess those fees. I think we have someone who as a former attorney general dealt, in fact, with this very type of issue during her tenure as attorney general. I turn to my colleague from North Dakota and ask that she comment on the legality of the issue as well as her thoughts in terms of the fairness and the States rights aspect, which truly makes this an issue our colleagues should join and support. This is exactly what could happen to them, and it could happen to their States. I turn to Senator Heitkamp for her thoughts in that regard.

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, in response to the Senator's question, absolutely not. It doesn't change any of the authorized purposes for the reservoirs and for the system. This does not impact in any way any of the authorized uses for the mainstem dams, the mainstem breviaries or the Missouri River system. I want to emphasize that because we have the seven Missouri River States, and sometimes we get the upstream and downstream interests. This does not change any of those authorized purposes or how they are utilized or how the respective States interact with them--or even the amount of water usage. So to try to bring in any of the other issues which have typically been concerns for the Missouri River does not apply here. This is about whether the respective States--this is one where we can come together. This is upstream or downstream and whether any States will be charged for water that is rightfully theirs. That makes this very much a States rights issue about which all of the States should be concerned. How can we allow Federal agencies to come in and simply impose a fee because they want to and then impose whatever fee they want? We will do a study and we will impose a fee of whatever size we determine we believe is appropriate. It is a clear violation of States rights, and on a very important issue, water rights. If I could, I want to also invite the good Senator from North Dakota, Ms. Heitkamp, to join us as well in this colloquy. She also brings expertise as the former attorney general in North Dakota and can certainly comment on the legal issues as well. Before I do that, I will turn it over, Mr. President, to the Senator from South Dakota, who I think had another question and/or comment.

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, with that, I wish to set aside the pending amendment and call up the Hoeven amendment No. 909. I wish to close with a couple other thoughts. Senator Baucus from Montana wanted to join with us in the colloquy, but the timeline didn't work out. So I wished to express my appreciation for his support and sponsorship of this legislation as well. I wish to again make the point that this isn't about using the water. Our respective States will still use the water. The issue is about being charged for it. That is a very important point, so that nobody tries to confuse this issue in order to try to get opposition to the issue. We will still use the water; it is just that we will be charged for it unfairly, except for the fact--as we said, this would be tied up in litigation creating a bunch of costs for the State and the Federal Government, so that wouldn't really happen. So what we are doing is solving a very important problem. It is one that all of the States need to be cognizant of, because if a Federal agency can come in and try to do it to one State, it can do it to any one of the States. This is a fundamental issue regarding States rights. If any of our colleagues have questions or concerns about the amendment, I encourage them to come to us. We want to talk to them about it. We truly believe, if they understand the facts, they will be strongly supportive. Again, I wish to turn to my colleague from South Dakota.

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

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, the Senator is absolutely right. I wish to thank him for emphasizing that point. It is very important. Again, that is why I encourage any of our colleagues to discuss this issue with us if they have any concerns whatsoever. It is just a fundamental fairness issue, and we ask for an affirmative vote from our colleagues. With that, I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HOEVEN. Yes.