John Hoeven

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. I ask unanimous consent that the time during the quorum call be equally divided.

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I rise to voice my opposition to the Iran nuclear agreement and my support for the resolution of disapproval. Although there are many arguments related to President Obama's agreement with Iran, I would like to focus on the subject of sanctions. I think it is important to consider why we sanctioned Iran, what happens to our sanctions if the deal is implemented, and the prospects for snapping back sanctions in the future. First, we imposed sanctions because we wanted to dismantle Iran's nuclear program. Again, I want to emphasize that. We imposed sanctions because we wanted to dismantle Iran's nuclear program. As Secretary Kerry said in December of 2013, we imposed sanctions ``because we knew that it would hopefully help Iran dismantle its nuclear program. That was the whole point of the [sanctions] regime.'' These were very serious and are very serious sanctions. According to the Treasury Department, sanctions reduced Iranian oil exports by 60 percent--by 60 percent--from 2.5 million barrels per day in 2012 to just over 1 million barrels per day in 2015. In 2014 alone, the Treasury Department believes Iran lost $40 billion in oil revenue. Sanctions also blocked Iran from accessing most of its billions in foreign currency reserves. In short, Iran's economy today is 15 to 20 percent smaller than it was projected to be back in 2012. We know these sanctions were having the desired effect because Iran decided to negotiate. The mullahs in Iran would not have come to the bargaining table if they are not feeling the effect of our sanctions. The opportunity to dismantle Iran's nuclear program was in sight, but then we let Iran off the hook. We agreed to a negotiations process that gave Iran room to maneuver. Instead of boxing them in with relentless economic pressure, we offered sanctions relief in return for mothballing Iran's nuclear infrastructure for a few years. The end result is that the deal undermines the whole point of the sanctions regime. We instituted sanctions to pressure Iran to dismantle its nuclear program, but this agreement provides sanctions relief and leaves the nuclear program intact. The terms of the agreement will give Iran access to more than $100 billion located in frozen bank accounts. Some estimates put that figure even higher. The windfall Iran expects to receive from foreign investments will strengthen Iran's economy even further. But let us focus on the initial more than $100 billion in sanctions relief, which is an enormous number. It is equivalent to 25 percent of Iran's annual gross domestic product. For perspective, one quarter of U.S. GDP would amount to more than $4 trillion. So you can see what a huge sum this is to Iran and how much it means to Iran and their economy and, ultimately, to their military. One analyst even pointed out that $100 billion for Iran in 2015 is roughly equivalent to the investment the United States made across Europe over the 4-year Marshall Plan to rehabilitate Europe after World War II. So you realize what a huge impact this will have, what a huge benefit it is for Iran, for its economy, and for its military. In short, handing Iran $100 billion gives the mullahs incredible flexibility. It is hard to imagine that Iran won't divert billions of these funds to Hezbollah in Lebanon, along with a billion or two for Yemen, and another billion or two or more for operations in Iraq and Syria. Remember, Iran is the No. 1 state sponsor of terror in the world today. This agreement will provide Iran with money to spend on its aggressive agenda across the Middle East. So one thing is clear--one thing is clear--the world's foremost state sponsor of terror and one of the worst violators of human rights on Earth will receive a huge windfall of cash. It is also clear Iran's economy and its military would be strengthened. As I said previously, Iran's economy today is 20 percent smaller than it would have been without 4 years of sanctions. Four years from now, without sanctions, Iran's economy will be larger and the regime will have not only more financial strength but also more flexibility to carry out its agenda. That flexibility will come at a very opportune time for them. Five years into this agreement, the conventional arms embargo will end, per the agreement, and it should be clear to all of us that Iran will then have the money, the resources to buy arms at that point. Three years later, or a total of 8 years after the agreement is implemented, the ballistic missile embargo will be lifted. So in 5 years they can buy conventional weapons and within 8 years they can buy advanced missile technology. And restrictions on Iran's nuclear program will begin to disappear a few years later. Iran's leaders are probably very pleased with that timing. First, they get sanctions relief, allowing them to grow their economy. That growth will create the investment capital for conventional arms purchases, which the deal permits in 5 years. By then they will be ready to acquire advanced ballistic missile technology--ballistic missiles the agreement allows Iran to purchase in 8 years. In fact, because their nuclear program will remain intact, at that point Iran could opt out of the deal, finish developing a nuclear weapon, and mount it on a ballistic missile. In short, the President's Iran agreement actually allows Iran a path to finance and develop an advanced nuclear weapon. Further, the agreement is not only bad on its merits, it is a strategic mistake. It hurts our long-standing Middle East alliances and positions Iran to be the dominant power in the Middle East. We know what Iran will do from a position of strength. It destabilizes Yemen, Syria, and Iraq, foments terrorism against Israel, and opens the door for countries such as Russia and China to meddle in regional politics. Even if Iran never developed a nuclear weapon, the agreement will position Iran to further undermine regional security for years to come. Leaving its nuclear infrastructure in place only makes things worse. What if Iran violates the agreement? It is interesting to note that many supporters of the deal have argued we must approve the agreement because our allies are already lifting their sanctions and that our sanctions will not be successful on their own. Yet these same supporters of the agreement believe sanctions could somehow be reimposed if Iran cheats on the deal. Unfortunately, the procedures in the agreement make snapping back sanctions very difficult. Under the terms of the deal, it would take months to establish Iranian violations of the agreement and put new sanctions back in place. Suppose Iran begins to cheat on the deal in a year or two. Under the terms of the agreement, it would take months to establish that Iran had violated the agreement and approve those new sanctions. That is hardly enough of a threat to keep Iran from cheating, but more importantly, the deal permits Iran to withdraw from the agreement if sanctions are reimposed. So snapping back sanctions would effectively kill the deal. Remember, they could kill the deal after they have already gotten more than $100 billion. The agreement makes it in Iran's interest to cheat on the deal knowing sanctions either won't be imposed or will allow them to pocket the $100 billion in sanctions relief, jump-starting their nuclear program, before any kind of sanctions are reimposed. For this reason, I believe if the agreement goes into effect, it will very likely die slowly from a thousand Iranian cuts, leaving behind a richer and nuclear-powered Iran. Voting to support the deal essentially means putting faith in Iran. It means believing that Iran will allow the inspections to occur. It means believing that Iran does not have any nuclear facilities that we are unaware of. It means believing that Iran will keep its nuclear infrastructure without attempting to build a nuclear weapon. I don't believe any of these things. Why? Because over the last 15 years Iran has blocked inspections, revealed the existence of secret nuclear sites only when forced to, and pushed for a nuclear weapon even when claiming they only wanted a peaceful program. But it doesn't have to be this way. We could seek a stronger agreement. We could make it clear that Iran does not have the right to nuclear weapons and cannot be allowed to obtain them. We could return to our original goal, which was the dismantlement of Iran's nuclear program, instead of negotiating away the leverage that sanctions created. For these reasons, I cannot support the President's agreement with Iran. Instead, I favor immediate additional sanctions to pressure Iran to dismantle its nuclear program, which was the objective when the negotiations began. We should not let Iran off the hook. We should not throw away the leverage we developed in recent years through these sanctions. It takes time for sanctions to work, but the relief is immediate when sanctions are lifted. We need to keep our sanctions, keep the pressure on, and get a deal that actually dismantles Iran's nuclear program. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum but also request that the time be equally divided. I yield to the Senator.

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I am here to speak about energy, both lower cost energy and who is going to supply it. One might say: Why today? Well, because sources tell me that after almost 7 years, President Obama is going to turn down the Keystone Pipeline project--7 years. This is an application that was filed by the TransCanada company in September 2008. So here we are in year 6, and in September it will be 7 years that the application has been pending. The administration has still not made a decision--defeat through delay. So the question is, Why then is he going to turn down the project now? It is because he will wait until Congress is out of session in August. Then he will turn down the project while Congress is not in session to have less pushback, less criticism, of his decision if he makes it under the radar. That timing is understandable because he is making a political decision rather than a decision based on the merits. As we know, Congress overwhelmingly supports the project. The House overwhelmingly passed approval of the Keystone Pipeline project. In the Senate, we had 62 votes in favor of the measure. We were actually missing some of our Members or we would have had 63, but there was strong overwhelming bipartisan support in both the House and the Senate. We sent the bill to the President and he vetoed it, but he still has not made a decision. He vetoed it saying it was up to him to make a decision, not the Congress. Congress went on record overwhelmingly in support of the project. Congress approved the project, but he vetoed the bill. It is the President's decision to make. Now we hear he is going to make it and turn down the project, but the Congress overwhelmingly supports it. The States on the Keystone Pipeline route overwhelmingly support it. There are six States on the route and every single State has approved the project: Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas. They all approved the project. Congress supports it, the States support it, but most importantly the American people support it. In poll after poll, the American people have overwhelmingly shown support for the project--65 to 70 percent--strong, overwhelming support for the project. Why do they support it? This is what it is all about: the merits of the project. They support it on the merits because it means more energy for this country that is produced in this country, in Canada, in my home State of North Dakota, and in Montana. There are 830,000 barrels of oil a day produced in Canada and the United States that can be refined in our refineries and can be used right here, rather than getting it from some other country such as OPEC, Russia, Venezuela, you name it. It is energy we produce here at home. First and foremost, Americans support it because they want our energy produced at home. They want us to be energy secure. It is about jobs. It is about jobs. This is a multibillion-dollar investment that creates good construction jobs. It is about economic growth, growing our economy here at home, working with our closest friend and ally, Canada. It is also about national security through energy security--not having to depend on the Middle East or OPEC for our energy. It doesn't cost the Federal Government a penny--not a penny. This is, as I say, a multibillion-dollar project that is completely built with private investment that would generate hundreds of millions of dollars in local, State, and Federal tax revenue. It would not cost the Federal Government one penny, generating hundreds of millions of dollars in cash revenues at the local, State, and Federal levels. But maybe the greatest irony of all is this: At the same time the President is making it harder to produce energy here at home in our country and get energy from our closest friend and ally Canada, he wants to make it easier to produce oil in Iran. Think about that. Right now the President is pressing Congress to approve an agreement with Iran that would remove the sanctions on oil production and exports in Iran. Under the proposed agreement that the President has submitted to this Congress, he includes releasing the U.S. sanctions put in place by Congress that limit and restrict Iran's ability to produce and export oil. These include energy sanctions that limit Iran's sale of crude oil, which was specifically passed by Congress. Also, he wants to remove the sanctions on investment in Iran's oil, gas, petrochemical, and automotive sectors--again, sanctions passed by Congress. He wants to remove sanctions on the energy sector equipment and gasoline sanctions that were passed by Congress. In essence, what the President is doing is allowing Iran to export its oil, he is allowing investment to help them produce more oil, and he is allowing the export to Iran of technology that will help them produce more oil and gas. At the same time, by turning down Keystone, the President is making it harder for us to produce and transport oil and gas in our country and work with our strongest ally, Canada. So what is the net effect of that? The net effect of that is it helps put OPEC back in the driver's seat. If you don't believe me, let's just take a look at the numbers. The numbers don't lie. Prior to 2012, before we put the Kirk-Menendez congressional sanctions in place as part of the National Defense Authorization Act at the end of 2011, during that year, at that time in 2011, Iran was producing 2.6 million barrels of oil a day. By 2013, after the Kirk-Menendez sanctions had been in effect, Iran was down to exporting only 1.1 million barrels a day. Iran had gone from 2.6 million barrels a day down to 1.1 million barrels a day of oil they were producing, exporting, and getting paid for. We cut that by more than half. My State of North Dakota alone produces 1.2 million barrels a day. That is more than Iran is exporting right now, but if all these sanctions come off, Iran gets to go back up to that 2.6 million and beyond. One million barrels at $50 a barrel is $50 million a day. One can see this means hundreds of millions and billions of dollars to Iran. This is certainly something to think about, going from 2.6 million barrels a day and having put sanctions in place, knocking it down to 1.1 million barrels--and that is with exceptions the President has allowed to the sanctions. That is without the sanctions being fully implemented. It shows that the sanctions are very effective. It also shows that if we release them, Iran will get incredible amounts of money--not only dollars that have been held from them, but dollars they are going to generate every day from increased oil production. So the President wants us to relieve these sanctions at the same time he, in essence, impedes our oil and our growth in energy development in this country. The simple question I have is, How does that make sense? How does that make sense? How do we get into a situation where we are enabling Iran to produce more oil, but the U.S. produces less? That makes no sense, but that is the impact of the President's decision. The President will make an argument that is based on environmental factors. He will say he is making that decision for environmental reasons. He doesn't want the oil produced in Canada. He usually just doesn't talk about the light sweet crude that is produced in the Bakken area of North Dakota and Montana, which is the lightest, sweetest crude I know of. He tries to make the argument that he doesn't like oil that is produced in Canada for environmental reasons. Remember I said this has been pending now for almost 7 years. We are in year 6. In the President's own Department of State, the environmental impact statement says the Keystone will have no significant environmental impact. It will be interesting to see when Congress is out of session--in August when the President turns this down, trying to get under the radar--what he has to say about how he is going to address the State Department's clear environmental impact statement, finding no significant environmental impact, but we will see what it is. At the same time, the President will work to convince Americans that all sanctions should be lifted from Iran so they can produce more oil and bring more money into their country. There is an old saying. Essentially it goes like this: Those who fail to heed the lessons of history are destined to repeat them. President Obama is not breaking our dependence on foreign oil, he is reinstating it. The President is not strengthening our energy future, he is weakening it, and I urge him to reconsider. With that, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for up to 10 minutes.

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

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. Madam President, I come to the floor this afternoon to talk about a program called Product of Canada. Product of Canada, you might ask what it is. The Product of Canada Program is the voluntary food labeling program they have in Canada. So no one has to participate in this program in Canada, but if they want to, they can. It is just that, a voluntary food labeling program they call Product of Canada. What does that mean? Well, just taking from one of the Web sites where we looked it up, the ``Product of Canada'' label can only be applied to animals that are born, raised, and slaughtered in Canada with some exceptions. Now, they also have labeling as far as prepacked products. That is actually mandatory labeling. Under their mandatory labeling it says: All prepackaged food products sold in Canada must be labeled with the name and address of the company. Also, it says: If manufactured outside of Canada, the label must reflect it is imported. It is mandatory to state the country of origin on some specific imported prepackaged products such as wine and brandy, dairy products, honey, fish, and seafood products, fresh fruit and vegetables, eggs shelled, eggs processed, meat products, maple products, processed fruits and vegetables. The program goes on, but the important point I want to make is they have some mandatory aspects to their prepackaged products and their prepackaged products program as I mentioned. But the Product of Canada Program and the ``Product of Canada'' label, that is a voluntary program. It is animals that are born, raised, and slaughtered in Canada. Why do I come to the floor of the Senate to point out that Canada has a voluntary meat labeling program, a Product of Canada Program? For the simple reason that we are and have been engaged in what do we do about COOL, the Country of Origin Labeling Program in the United States. I have offered bipartisan legislation, legislation with Senator Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, who is the lead Democrat on the legislation, bipartisan legislation that includes a majority of the agricultural committee in the Senate. So what we are trying to do is solve the country-of-origin labeling dispute or disagreement by creating bipartisanship and passing a bill that addresses the underlying problem. So what is the problem? The problem is that the WTO court, the World Trade Organization court has determined that a mandatory food labeling program, COOL, does not meet the WTO requirements. So the House of Representatives, led by the agriculture chairman, Mike Conaway, who is an outstanding ag chairman in the House, passed a bill that repeals mandatory COOL. You know what. We took that bill and we have included it in our legislation which we call the Voluntary Country of Origin Labeling and Trade Enhancement Act of 2015--we took the very same legislation, and we are trying to pass it here. We are trying to pass the same--we did not take anything out of Representative Conaway's bill, passed in the House. We took that bill. We are trying to pass it here to address the issue of mandatory food labeling, mandatory COOL. But we also added a voluntary program, just as Canada has a voluntary Product of Canada Program. So there are just a few basic logical questions I would ask. First, we are repealing the mandatory program. So when somebody says: Well, you have to repeal mandatory COOL, and you cannot have anything else, we have to repeal mandatory COOL, that is exactly what we do. We pass the Conaway bill. We repeal mandatory COOL. That is a fact. Facts are stubborn things. So let's be clear on that. We do. We pass the House bill, and we add to it a voluntary program, similar to the Product of Canada Program because there are people in this country who want voluntary labeling. They want a voluntary country-of-origin labeling program. They want a program, which as Canada has--Product of Canada is a voluntary program. At the end of the day, to get this done, to avoid any countervailing duty or tariffs under the WTO ruling, we need to repeal mandatory COOL, which we do, and we put in place the voluntary COOL, which we need to do to get bipartisan support in the Senate and the House and pass the legislation we need to pass. We need to do it in that way in order to get it done timely--certainly before we go on the August recess. So this is a clear opportunity to come together in a bipartisan way and solve a problem and solve it in a way that makes sense. We reach out to our House counterparts. We reach out to our counterparts in the House and we say: You did good work. You did hard work. You passed a repeal of mandatory COOL. That is fine. We are passing your bill. At the same time, because there are advocates for labeling, we pass a voluntary program so we can actually move the bill through the Senate, get into conference with the House, and get their work done now rather than waiting. The voluntary program is the same thing Canada does. So how can our very good friends in Canada say to us: Well, it is OK for Canada to have a voluntary program and, yes, we get that you are fully repealing mandatory COOL, but, gee, even though we in Canada have a voluntary program, gosh, we don't think you ought to have one in the United States. It does not make sense. Come on. Let's get together. Let's find a way to get together in a bipartisan way, move this legislation, get together with the House and get this done. That is all we are asking. We have a good start on this bill. We have a majority on our ag committee. Sponsoring the legislation along with Senator Stabenow and me are Senator John Thune, Republican; Senator Amy Klobuchar, Democrat; Senator Chuck Grassley, Republican; Senator Heidi Heitkamp, Democrat; Senator Mike Enzi, Republican; Senator Sherrod Brown, a Democrat. That is bipartisan. It is common sense. It is a simple solution. We are saying: OK. We get it. Canada won in the WTO court. We cannot have a mandatory program. We follow the House's lead. We pass their legislation. At the same time, we put in place a voluntary program similar to Canada's. We are reaching out to our friends and neighbors in Canada and saying: Hey, we want to work with you. Please work with us. That is what we do in this legislation. So I hope Senators will join together with us in a bipartisan--I emphasize that again--in a bipartisan way. That is what it takes in the Senate. It takes 60 votes to pass legislation. You cannot do it with just one party or the other. It takes 60 votes. You have to have bipartisan legislation. I call on my colleagues to get together with us. Let's move this legislation. Let's get together with the House and our friends from Canada and get this done. We can do it. We can do it now in a timely way, and we can make sure we not only don't have any countervailing duty or tariffs on our exports, but we can also have a voluntary labeling program which many in this country want: consumers, producers, our farmers, our ranchers, retailers, some processors. But you know what. If somebody does not want to participate, that is fine, hence the word ``voluntary.'' That is the American way. I have had the good fortune to work with Representative Conaway. I certainly appreciate him and his hard work. I have also had the opportunity to work with our good friends north of the border. We have no better friend and ally than Canada. We should be able to get together with our Canadian friends and say: Look, we are absolutely doing what the WTO court requires. We are repealing mandatory COOL. We are passing the House bill. But at the same time, there are a lot of people in this country whom we have to be fair to who want a voluntary program. There is no reason in the world to hold up solving this problem by not allowing them to have a voluntary program, similar to the voluntary program Canada has, Product of Canada. I also would note that my cosponsor on the legislation is on the floor. I greet her and thank her for her hard, bipartisan work to solve this challenge in a very commonsense way. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. HOEVEN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for up to 10 minutes.

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

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, today I filed, along with a bipartisan group of cosponsors, the Voluntary Country of Origin Labeling and Trade Enhancement Act of 2015. I wish to thank the cosponsors on the legislation. The lead cosponsor on the Democratic side is Senator Debbie Stabenow, ranking member on the Senate Agriculture Committee. Also joining us in this bipartisan group are Senator John Thune from South Dakota, another member of the agriculture committee, Senator Amy Klobuchar, Senator Chuck Grassley, Senator Heidi Heitkamp, Senator Mike Enzi, and Senator Sherrod Brown. With the exception of Senator Enzi, all of the cosponsors are members of our agriculture committee. What we are trying to do is come up with a solution to the country- of-origin labeling issue. This is an issue that has been in a WTO court for some time and involves the United States, Canada, and Mexico, our very good trading partners. Essentially what we are working to do is to find a solution that addresses the WTO issues as far as country-of- origin labeling in a way that makes sure that we are WTO compliant so that there are no duties or tariffs that can be levied against any of our agricultural exports or any other exports. At the same time, for those who want to use country-of-origin labeling on a voluntary basis, they are able to do so. That would preserve what is known as the ``Grade A'' label, which simply means born, raised, and slaughtered or processed in the United States. So for beef, pork, and chicken, if it is born and raised and processed in the United States, one can still use that ``Grade A'' label, but it is a voluntary program, it is not a mandatory program. We do that purposely so that we meet the WTO requirements. I have spoken with the U.S. Trade Representative's office about that issue, which I will go into in just a minute. What we have done is we have simply taken the House legislation-- sponsored by the Agriculture Committee chairman in the House, Representative Mike Conaway, which passed in the House--essentially, we take the same bill, the same language as far as repealing mandatory COOL. So we repeal mandatory COOL, which puts us in compliance with what the WTO is asking for, then we simply add some language that allows for a voluntary program, so that for processors, marketers, and producers that want to participate in a voluntary program, they can. If they believe consumers want to know, then they have that opportunity to provide their product with the ``Grade A'' label on a voluntary basis. That is reasonable because that is what Canada does. Canada has a voluntary program. It is called their ``Product of Canada'' label. So all we are doing is what Canada does. We repeal the mandatory program and we put in place a voluntary program just as our good friends and neighbors do in Canada. When I spoke with the U.S. Trade Representative about this issue, essentially what they said is whether we repeal mandatory COOL by itself or repeal mandatory COOL and have a voluntary program, essentially we are in the same position vis-a-vis meeting the WTO requirements. So this is really an effort to build bipartisan support for a solution to the COOL issue, which has been a challenging issue. This is an issue we worked on on the farm bill. I was one of the conferees on the conference committee, and COOL and some of the other issues were some of the last--dairy, for example--issues we were able to resolve in finally getting an agreement on a farm bill. Again, this is an effort in a practical way to bring people together on both sides of the issue to solve the problem. We make sure we are WTO compliant. Then, on a voluntary basis, there is the option for people to label as they want to. We work to create enough bipartisan support in this body so we can deal with the issue now, so we can resolve the issue now and pass this legislation and then get it to conference with the House and have a resolution before the end of this month and before the August recess so that this issue is taken care of. I look forward to working with everybody involved on both sides of the aisle, including our esteemed chairman of the Agriculture Committee, Senator Roberts. I appreciate all the time we have spent working together on this issue. I look forward to working with Members on both sides of the aisle, both on the Agriculture Committee and everyone else, to craft a solution, advance it through this body, and get it to conference with the House. As I said, I have spoken with Chairman Conaway, the Agriculture Committee chairman in the House. We have a good relationship, and we had a good dialogue about the sooner we get to work together to resolve this, the better, and we look forward to that. Again, I ask my colleagues to join with us, our bipartisan group, in a bipartisan way. Let's get this done and make sure we not only have addressed the issue with the World Trade Organization court so there are no duties but also make sure we have put forward a solution that works for the American consumer and for the American agriculture industry, that on a voluntary basis gives them the opportunity to provide country-of-origin labeling as well as solving the WTO challenge.

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for up to 10 minutes.

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

Mr. HOEVEN. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, today I filed, along with a bipartisan group of cosponsors, the Voluntary Country of Origin Labeling and Trade Enhancement Act of 2015. I wish to thank the cosponsors on the legislation. The lead cosponsor on the Democratic side is Senator Debbie Stabenow, ranking member on the Senate Agriculture Committee. Also joining us in this bipartisan group are Senator John Thune from South Dakota, another member of the agriculture committee, Senator Amy Klobuchar, Senator Chuck Grassley, Senator Heidi Heitkamp, Senator Mike Enzi, and Senator Sherrod Brown. With the exception of Senator Enzi, all of the cosponsors are members of our agriculture committee. What we are trying to do is come up with a solution to the country- of-origin labeling issue. This is an issue that has been in a WTO court for some time and involves the United States, Canada, and Mexico, our very good trading partners. Essentially what we are working to do is to find a solution that addresses the WTO issues as far as country-of- origin labeling in a way that makes sure that we are WTO compliant so that there are no duties or tariffs that can be levied against any of our agricultural exports or any other exports. At the same time, for those who want to use country-of-origin labeling on a voluntary basis, they are able to do so. That would preserve what is known as the ``Grade A'' label, which simply means born, raised, and slaughtered or processed in the United States. So for beef, pork, and chicken, if it is born and raised and processed in the United States, one can still use that ``Grade A'' label, but it is a voluntary program, it is not a mandatory program. We do that purposely so that we meet the WTO requirements. I have spoken with the U.S. Trade Representative's office about that issue, which I will go into in just a minute. What we have done is we have simply taken the House legislation-- sponsored by the Agriculture Committee chairman in the House, Representative Mike Conaway, which passed in the House--essentially, we take the same bill, the same language as far as repealing mandatory COOL. So we repeal mandatory COOL, which puts us in compliance with what the WTO is asking for, then we simply add some language that allows for a voluntary program, so that for processors, marketers, and producers that want to participate in a voluntary program, they can. If they believe consumers want to know, then they have that opportunity to provide their product with the ``Grade A'' label on a voluntary basis. That is reasonable because that is what Canada does. Canada has a voluntary program. It is called their ``Product of Canada'' label. So all we are doing is what Canada does. We repeal the mandatory program and we put in place a voluntary program just as our good friends and neighbors do in Canada. When I spoke with the U.S. Trade Representative about this issue, essentially what they said is whether we repeal mandatory COOL by itself or repeal mandatory COOL and have a voluntary program, essentially we are in the same position vis-a-vis meeting the WTO requirements. So this is really an effort to build bipartisan support for a solution to the COOL issue, which has been a challenging issue. This is an issue we worked on on the farm bill. I was one of the conferees on the conference committee, and COOL and some of the other issues were some of the last--dairy, for example--issues we were able to resolve in finally getting an agreement on a farm bill. Again, this is an effort in a practical way to bring people together on both sides of the issue to solve the problem. We make sure we are WTO compliant. Then, on a voluntary basis, there is the option for people to label as they want to. We work to create enough bipartisan support in this body so we can deal with the issue now, so we can resolve the issue now and pass this legislation and then get it to conference with the House and have a resolution before the end of this month and before the August recess so that this issue is taken care of. I look forward to working with everybody involved on both sides of the aisle, including our esteemed chairman of the Agriculture Committee, Senator Roberts. I appreciate all the time we have spent working together on this issue. I look forward to working with Members on both sides of the aisle, both on the Agriculture Committee and everyone else, to craft a solution, advance it through this body, and get it to conference with the House. As I said, I have spoken with Chairman Conaway, the Agriculture Committee chairman in the House. We have a good relationship, and we had a good dialogue about the sooner we get to work together to resolve this, the better, and we look forward to that. Again, I ask my colleagues to join with us, our bipartisan group, in a bipartisan way. Let's get this done and make sure we not only have addressed the issue with the World Trade Organization court so there are no duties but also make sure we have put forward a solution that works for the American consumer and for the American agriculture industry, that on a voluntary basis gives them the opportunity to provide country-of-origin labeling as well as solving the WTO challenge.

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I thank Senators Alexander and Murray for crafting this bipartisan proposal to reform and reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the main source of Federal aid for K-through-12 education. The Every Child Achieves Act takes many important steps to return the authority of K-12 education back to the States and to the local school districts and directly to those who are best equipped to understand and respond to what it takes to educate our students. Importantly, this bill empowers States to develop their own education accountability plans. Instead of a one-size-fits-all Federal mandate, this bill charges the States to work with teachers, school districts, Governors, parents, and other stakeholders to develop a State-led education plan for all students without interference from Washington. The bill affirms that the Federal Government cannot dictate a State's specific academic standards, curriculum or assessment. I repeat. The bill affirms that the Federal Government cannot dictate State-specific academic standards, curriculum or assessments. It affirms local control and accountability while maintaining important achievement information to provide parents with information on how their children are performing as well as to help teachers target support to those who are struggling to meet State standards. We also recognize that science, technology, engineering, and mathematics--or STEM--education continues to play an increasingly important role in preparing our students for the careers of tomorrow. In North Dakota, STEM education prepares students to fulfill the workforce needs of our dynamic economy, from the high-tech industries in the east to the energy fields in the west. For example, we have one school district, the West Fargo school district, which has created a STEM center for students in grades 6, 7, and 8, and is doing an exceptional job of integrating STEM teaching into the classroom. This school district program started in 2009 with 150 students in the sixth and seventh grades. Since then, it has been expanded to serve eighth grade students as well. They have also created a STEM pathway program at the high school level. The approach focuses on project-based learning that connects their school work to solving real world problems through the engineering and design process. When Senator Klobuchar and I visited the school this spring, we witnessed students working hands-on with a wide range of technologies at cooperative lab stations, including drones and flight simulators. West Fargo students have received numerous awards and honors, placing first in the Nation in a lunar water recycling design competition sponsored by NASA to excelling in a number of Web page design and robotics competitions around the country. This education is not just about teaching students more science, math or engineering. This approach reaches across subjects to promote problem solving, collaboration, communication, and critical thinking skills. The Every Child Achieves Act includes a formula grant aimed at providing State resources to improve STEM education. The Improving STEM Instruction and Student Achievement Program provides grants to States to improve STEM instruction, student engagement, and increased student achievement in STEM subjects. Under this program, States have the ability to award subgrants to projects of their choice to serve high- need school districts or form partnerships with higher education institutions. States can also use these funds to recruit qualified teachers and instructional leaders in STEM subjects or to develop a STEM master teacher corps. In recent years, North Dakota has chosen to award funds to projects that partner with our State's higher education institutions to provide professional development opportunities for K-12 math and science teachers. I have worked with Senator Klobuchar to craft amendment No. 2138. Our proposal will give States the option to award those funds to create or enhance a STEM-focused specialty school or a STEM program within a school. STEM-focused specialty schools or STEM programs within a school are those that engage students in rigorous, relevant, and integrated- learning STEM experiences. Allowing funds to go toward a STEM program within a school will allow successful programs such as those occurring in our State to benefit. It will also encourage other school districts to begin their own programs. So if a school district would like to better integrate STEM concepts into their teaching practices, this amendment allows those districts to submit a proposal to the State for resources to carry out that plan. The Klobuchar-Hoeven amendment also requires the Education Secretary to identify STEM-specific needs of States and districts receiving funds and publicize information about those activities. The Secretary is then directed to align Federal STEM activities with State and district needs. Finally, this amendment directs the U.S. Department of Education to avoid unnecessary duplication of STEM programmatic activities supported by the Department and other Federal agencies. This is important because there are so many disjointed STEM activities and programs throughout our government. In a May 2015 report, the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service states that despite recent reductions in the number of Federal STEM programs, recent estimates suggest there are still between 105 and 254 STEM programs scattered throughout as many as 15 Federal agencies. These programs account for $2.8 billion to $3.4 billion in spending. These programs have their own distinct requirements and obligations that allow very little collaboration or coordination. We simply want to ensure that States and schools are aware of the existing efforts underway to best utilize public resources. In conclusion, we believe that this bipartisan amendment should be agreeable to both sides and will strengthen the Every Child Achieves Act. In fact, I have just been informed that both the chairman and the ranking member from the HELP Committee and the leaders on this Every Child Achieves Act have included our legislation in the manager's package with support from both sides of the aisle. I want to thank both Senator Lamar Alexander from Tennessee, who is the chairman of the committee and the sponsor of the bill, as well as Senator Patty Murray from Washington, who is the co-lead on this legislation, for their support of this STEM legislation. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the National Defense Authorization Act. This is legislation we are currently considering that we need to pass. It is important for our military, and it is important for the American people. I have offered a number of amendments, and I rise to speak about three of those amendments at this point. The first is amendment No. 1483, which involves RPA flight training. Essentially, amendment No. 1483 would instruct the Air Force to consider allowing private contractors to provide the Air Force with training for remotely piloted aircraft or RPAs. These are the vehicles used in unmanned aerial systems, commonly called UAS. Currently, the Air Force is training pilots for RPAs, remotely piloted aircraft, within the service itself. But there are some very skilled private contractors. In fact, the people who make unmanned aircraft could be doing high-quality training for them as well, particularly in concert with our universities that provide aviation training. Right now the Air Force faces a real challenge in training a sufficient number of unmanned aircraft pilots to meet operational demands. Specifically, this amendment directs the Air Force to evaluate the use of private contractor facilities, equipment, and trainers to increase the number of qualified pilots for our RPA missions. It requires the Air Force to detail various aspects of their shortfall in manning RPAs, the authorized number of personnel assigned to the missions, and the identification and assessment of actions to address that shortfall. In this rapidly growing era of unmanned aerial systems technology, it just makes sense for the military to partner with companies and universities that have the expertise to provide the critical training the military needs. It is cost effective. It is efficient. It is good for the military and our country. Right now the demand for unmanned aerial systems is so strong worldwide that the Air Force has all of its pilots flying the missions. That does not give them the resources, the pilots to train more pilots to fly unmanned aerial systems. So this is a way that we can help the Air Force train these new pilots with the very contractors that make things such as Global Hawk, Predator and with our universities that provide aviation training. I think it would be of great benefit and assistance to the Air Force. The second amendment that I want to talk about is amendment No. 1484. This one seeks to give the Air National Guard units a larger role in the Global Hawk unmanned aerial systems mission. Specifically, this measure directs the Air Force to determine the feasibility of partnering the Air National Guard with Active-Duty Air Force to operate and maintain the Global Hawk. The RQ-4 Global Hawks, including the Block 20, Block 30, and Block 40 variants, are the Air Force's high- altitude, long-endurance aircraft for intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance. They are currently operated and maintained only by Active-Duty forces. But the Air National Guard could be providing a valuable adjunct to the Air Force's regular personnel if we allow them to do that. The North Dakota Air National Guard, for example, already operates and maintains the armed MQ-1 Predator, and does it exceptionally well. They and units like them are clearly capable of taking on part of the Global Hawk mission, in association with their Active-Duty counterparts. This amendment would further the joint operations which have been a major initiative of all of the armed services, the Guard, and the Reserves in recent years, and they have done a tremendous job on jointness. It has made our military stronger, more effective, and more responsive. We need to continue to build on that joint operation. That is exactly what this amendment does. The third amendment that I would like to discuss is amendment No. 1485. It regards the Nuclear Force Improvement Program. This amendment seeks to fortify the Nuclear Force Improvement Program, or NFIP, which I believe is crucial to our national security both now and well into the future. The reality is that we are facing an increasingly nuclearized future. Nations such as Iran, North Korea, and others have or are developing nuclear weapons. That means we must maintain a credible, decisive nuclear deterrent. That is what the Nuclear Force Improvement Program is all about. In 2014, the Air Force initiated the program to bolster and enhance its nuclear missions, including the intercontinental ballistic missile, ICBM, and nuclear-capable bomber missions. The program involves a wide range of efforts to improve morale, update facilities and equipment, and reinvigorate the nuclear-related career fields in the Air Force. We need to continue to invest in and build this program. Specifically, my amendment provides that the nuclear mission should be a top priority for the Department of Defense and the Air Force; that Congress should support investments which sustain progress made under the Nuclear Force Improvement Program; that the Air Force should regularly inform Congress on the program's progress and any additional requirements it may identify; and that future Air Force budgets should reflect the importance of the nuclear mission and the need to support personnel performing the nuclear mission. The bottom line is that the men and women assigned to the nuclear mission in the U.S. Air Force are doing incredibly important work every day for the security of our country. We need to do all we can to support them. We need to provide them with the support they deserve so they can continue to do the job we ask them to do and do it at the level that our security requires. The Nuclear Force Improvement Program is a success, and the Air Force needs to extend it into the future and continue to shore up the foundations of our nuclear deterrent, which is, itself, at the foundation of national security. In conclusion, let me say that working on legislation as essential as the defense of our Nation is and should be a bipartisan effort. The Senate Armed Services Committee passed this bill out of committee with a bipartisan vote of 22 to 4. Let's come together and do this for the American people and the men, women, and families who have undertaken the great and noble effort to protect our country. I want to thank both the chairman of the Armed Services Committee and the ranking member for their hard work, for their bipartisanship, and, again, offer my support as we work to pass this vitally important legislation for our military and for this great country. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. I ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported substitute amendment to S. 246 be agreed to, the bills be read a third time and passed en bloc, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the Native American Children's Safety Act, S. 184. This legislation, which I have introduced along with Senator Tester, is about one thing: making sure that foster children in Native American communities are placed in safe homes. Without this legislation, there will continue to be inconsistent rules guiding the placement of Native American children in foster care. At this time, Native American tribes and their tribal courts use procedures and guidelines when placing a Native American child in a foster home that vary significantly from tribe to tribe. S. 184 addresses this problem by creating a transparent pathway for the Federal Government and the tribes to partner together to establish safety standards and policies to ensure the safety of Native American foster care children. Moreover, this bill will strengthen the governance of the tribes and create safeguards for their foster care placement programs and the individuals those programs serve. The Native American Children's Safety Act specifically includes the following reforms: It requires that all prospective foster care parents and adults living in the home undergo a background check prior to the placement of a Native American foster child in that home; it requires that background checks include checking for criminal activity as well as State and tribal child abuse and neglect registries; it requires adults who join the household after the foster care child has been placed there also undergo background checks; and, it requires that foster care homes undergo recertification periodically to ensure they remain safe for foster care children. We worked on this legislation with the tribes, with the National Indian Child Welfare Association, with the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Administration for Children and Families. The reforms are just commonsense measures designed to protect those Native American children who are in need of a good, safe home. In fact, S. 184 has been endorsed by the National Indian Child Welfare Association as well as the Spirit Lake and Turtle Mountain tribes in my home State of North Dakota. This bill has undergone many thoughtful efforts on the part of many people and plenty of thoughtful consideration, and it has gone through regular order in the Senate. It passed unanimously out of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs on February 4, 2015. I am pleased this bill now has passed the full Senate so these children can receive the protection they deserve. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. HOEVEN. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of the following bills en bloc: Calendar No. 77, S. 184, and Calendar No. 79, S. 246.

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I rise again to speak in support of the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act. It is good legislation, drafted and introduced by the Senator from Texas, Mr. Cornyn, and also the Senator from Minnesota, Ms. Klobuchar. They originally put this bill together in the last Congress, and I was pleased to be a cosponsor of that bill. I am also very pleased to be an original cosponsor of the legislation they introduced earlier this year, the legislation we have on the floor now. This bill has many important, strong points. I am going to go through some--not all but a number of them. For example, it makes sure victims get restitution and witnesses get rewards for cooperating with law enforcement before others and encourages prosecutors to get training on restitution in human trafficking cases. It also gives law enforcement greater authority to seize the assets of convicted human traffickers, and it protects victims and witnesses by requiring human traffickers to be treated as violent criminals for purposes of pretrial release and detention pending judicial proceedings. It also ensures that Federal crime victims are informed of any plea bargain or deferred prosecution agreement in their case and clarifies that the ordinary standard of appellate review applies in cases concerning Federal crime victims' rights petitions. It recognizes that child pornography production is a form of human trafficking and ensures that victims have access to direct services at child advocacy centers to help them heal. It allows State and local human trafficking task forces to get wiretap warrants within their own State courts without Federal approval. That will help them to more effectively investigate crimes of child pornography, child sexual exploitation, and human trafficking. The bill also improves nationwide communications so law enforcement can better track and capture traffickers and child pornographers. It ensures regular reporting on the number of human trafficking crimes for purposes of the FBI Uniform Crime Reporting Program. It also requires law enforcement to upload photos of missing individuals into the National Criminal Information Center database and notify the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children of any child reported missing from foster care, and it strengthens current law to reduce demand for human trafficking by encouraging police, prosecutors, judges, and juries to target all persons involved in the buying and selling of human trafficking victims. It is just wrong to prosecute victims and fail to prosecute those who prey on them. This legislation will help for all of those reasons, but this legislation is also very important because it creates a fund from fines and penalties imposed on those who would engage in human trafficking. The fund is important because it not only compensates victims of human trafficking and other crimes of exploitation for their injuries, but it also provides resources to help law enforcement prevent such crimes in the future. As we work on this important issue, it is also very important that we understand that human trafficking is not just a big-State, big-city problem. Every State in the country is facing this issue, including my home State of North Dakota, but we currently have a challenge addressing this problem. After consulting with the North Dakota attorney general's office, we learned that North Dakota has been discouraged from applying for antihuman trafficking grants, because in its application, the Department of Justice asks for at least 2 years of local data on human trafficking victims. North Dakota, in recent years, has been the fastest growing State in the country. So here we are, the fastest growing State both in terms of population and in terms of income growth. Consequently, more so than many States, only recently we have seen significant increases in human trafficking issues. So we don't have that 2 years' worth of data that DOJ requires, but we very much need assistance with addressing the problem of human trafficking. It is not unique to North Dakota. There are other States--typically fast-growing States, States that may have the same kind of energy development or other areas where they have seen a significant influx of people and are continuing to see a significant influx of people. This is a national issue. It is not specific just to my State but to any State where we have seen rapid growth, influx of money, influx of people from outside the State and where human trafficking is an issue. To remedy that, I have offered an amendment to the current legislation we have on the floor now, the Cornyn-Klobuchar bill, that clarifies that an eligibility entity with a worthy trafficking initiative, in an effort to combat trafficking in its jurisdiction, will not be disadvantaged in receiving funds under the Cornyn-Klobuchar bill because they, like North Dakota--be it a State or whatever--have only recently begun collecting data on human trafficking. So in cases where they don't have 2 years of data, as long as they can demonstrate a valid need and a valid solution to try to address this important issue and to reduce human trafficking, that is what will be required for the application, and not having 2 years of data will not be an issue in terms of scoring or an issue that DOJ would hold against that application for receipt of the funds for a worthy project. This is important to make sure that all across the country, in every State, we are addressing human trafficking. We all need to be united, in every State across this great country, working to combat human trafficking. That is why this amendment is very important. There are few issues that as a governing body we can be more united on than making sure we protect our children, that we prevent human trafficking in any form, and that we do it on a national basis in every State. That is what my amendment is all about. For this reason, I offer this amendment. I hope it will be included as part of the Cornyn-Klobuchar legislation, which, as I said earlier, I am only too pleased to cosponsor. The value and importance of this legislation is reflected in the broad coalition of victims' rights and law enforcement organizations that support it. It has been endorsed by nearly 200 groups, from the Fraternal Order of Police to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. We need to pass this legislation. Crimes such as human trafficking and child pornography target the most vulnerable among us in a most despicable way. I urge all of my colleagues to pass this bill, to put an end to modern-day slavery, and to help victims get the support they need. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. Madam President, I rise today to speak in support of the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act legislation that has been drafted and introduced by my good friends Senator John Cornyn of Texas and Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota. The bill helps survivors of human trafficking and child pornography and aids law enforcement in discouraging demand for these serious crimes. This is a bill they originally introduced in 2013. I was a cosponsor of that bill, and I am also an original cosponsor of this bipartisan legislation which was introduced earlier this year because I believe it is very important legislation. It is important because it not only compensates victims of human trafficking and other crimes of exploitation for their injuries but also provides resources to help law enforcement prevent such crimes in the future by targeting demand. The need for this bill is real and it is troubling. Every year across America, children and adults are bought and sold for reprehensible purposes. According to the National Center For Missing and Exploited Children, at least 100,000 American children each year are the victims of commercial child prostitution and child trafficking. It is not just a big-State, big-city problem. Every State in the country is facing this issue, including my home State of North Dakota, but we currently have trouble addressing this problem because of the many needs, including the need for resources. After consultation with the attorney general's office, we learned that North Dakota has had difficulty applying for anti-human trafficking grants because to be eligible, the Department of Justice requires at least 2 years of local data on human trafficking. In recent years, North Dakota has been the fastest growing State in the country in terms of both population and income growth. Consequently, North Dakota has only recently seen a sudden increase in human trafficking issues. To remedy that, I have offered an amendment to the Cornyn- Klobuchar bill to make sure it does not mandate a required time period of collected data. The proposed amendment clarifies that a local or State government with a worthy trafficking initiative will not be precluded from receiving funds under the Cornyn-Klobuchar legislation because they, like North Dakota, have only recently begun collecting data on human trafficking. They only have to demonstrate a valid need, which is, of course, significant and growing across the country. Here is what a group of victims support groups and law enforcement organizations had to say: Women and children, especially girls, are advertised online where buyers purchase them with ease, anonymity, and impunity. This happens in every city, in every State. There are few issues that we as a governing body can be more unified on than that our children are precious and that it is our duty to protect them. For this reason, the Cornyn-Klobuchar bill has strong bipartisan support in the Senate, and I believe it will also be supported in the House. While it may need some amending here and there, we all recognize we could be doing more to help victims of human trafficking, child pornography, and other crimes of exploitation against children and vulnerable adults. These often-invisible victims not only need to be rescued from their situation, but they also need medical, mental health, housing, legal, and other important services. The Cornyn-Klobuchar bill addresses the need to do more head-on. It establishes the Domestic Trafficking Victims' Fund, which is paid for through fines on persons convicted of child pornography, human trafficking, child prostitution, sexual exploitation, and human smuggling offenses. Under current law those convicted of child abuse, trafficking, and related crimes must pay just a $100 special assessment fee. Under this legislation that fee is increased to $5,000 for every individual convicted of human trafficking, child pornography, and other forms of child exploitation. Those funds go to the Domestic Trafficking Victims' Fund, which will be used to increase the Federal resources available for human trafficking victims by $7 million a year over a 5-year timeframe, for a total of $35 million. Funding will be awarded as block grants to State and local governments under the Victim-Centered Human Trafficking Deterrence Block Grant Program. The purpose of these grants is to develop and implement victim-centered programs that train law enforcement to rescue trafficking survivors, prosecute traffickers and pornographers, and help to restore the lives of their innocent victims. In addition, the Justice for Victims of Human Trafficking Act does a number of things, including making sure that victims get restitution and witnesses get rewards for cooperating with law enforcement before others, encouraging prosecutors to get training on restitution in human trafficking cases, and giving law enforcement greater authority to seize the assets of convicted human traffickers. It protects victims and witnesses by requiring human traffickers to be treated as violent criminals for purposes of pretrial release and detention pending judicial proceedings. It ensures that Federal crime victims are informed of any plea bargain or deferred prosecution agreement in their case and clarifies that the ordinary standard of appellate review applies in cases concerning Federal crime victims' rights petitions. It recognizes that child pornography production is a form of human trafficking and ensures that victims have access to direct services at child advocacy centers to help them heal. It allows State and local human trafficking task forces to get wiretap warrants within their own State courts without Federal approval. That will help them to more effectively investigate crimes of child pornography, child exploitation, and human trafficking. In addition, the bill improves nationwide communications so that law enforcement can better track and capture traffickers and child pornographers. It ensures regular reporting on the number of human trafficking crimes for purposes of the FBI Uniform Crime Reporting Program. It also requires law enforcement to upload photos of missing individuals into the National Criminal Information Center database and notifies the National Center For Missing and Exploited Children of any child reported missing from foster care. Finally, it strengthens the current law to reduce demand for human trafficking by encouraging police, prosecutors, judges, and juries to target all persons involved in the buying and selling of human trafficking victims. It is wrong to prosecute victims and to fail to prosecute those who prey on them. The value and importance of this bill are reflected in the broad coalition of victims' rights and law enforcement organizations that support it. It has been endorsed by nearly 200 groups, from the Fraternal Order of Police, to the National Center For Missing and Exploited Children. We need to pass the Cornyn-Klobuchar legislation because crimes such as human trafficking and child pornography target the most vulnerable among us in a most despicable way. I urge all of my colleagues to pass this bill to put an end to modern-day slavery and to help victims get the support they need. Again, I would like to close with my request to our colleagues on both sides of the aisle that we be allowed to proceed on the bill and again reference the importance of including my amendment, which ensures that all States, including those that have seen a recent real increase in human trafficking, have access to funds so that they can truly help victims in their State combat human trafficking in their State in conjunction with local law enforcement. With that, Madam President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I thank our colleague from West Virginia for his tremendous leadership. I know that will continue. He is right. If we don't win the battle today, we will win the war because we will find another bill to attach this legislation to. But the thing is that we ought to pass it on its merits, as the Senator so eloquently explained. I will now turn to the head of the energy committee, somebody who is truly committed to an ``all of the above'' energy approach and demonstrates that leadership on the ``all of the above'' approach every day in this body and certainly in her leadership of our energy committee. That is why she speaks on this issue in a way that should have everyone listening to her. Whether she is speaking about fossil fuels, traditional energy or renewables, this is a Senator who has supported all of these and has great creditability on this issue. I turn to my colleague from Alaska.

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I thank the good Senator from South Dakota, and turn to my colleague from West Virginia who has been a champion on this project and other energy projects. As a Governor, he has worked on energy. He understands job creation, and he understands that we can make this country much stronger if we produce energy here at home versus getting it abroad. I turn to my colleague from the State of West Virginia and thank him for his leadership on this legislation.

Mr. HOEVEN. Thank you, Mr. President. I am here to discuss the Keystone Pipeline approval legislation and the President's recent veto as well as our efforts today to override that veto. I will be joined in the colloquy with my distinguished colleague from South Dakota. Also our colleague on the other side of the aisle from West Virginia will be joining us shortly, as well as the chairman of the energy committee, our colleague from Alaska. I want to make a couple points upfront and then turn to my colleague from South Dakota. What I have here and have shown before on the Senate floor is the route the Keystone XL Pipeline would take from the oil sands in Hardisty, Alberta, coming down through Montana where we pick up domestic crude. Often people think of it as moving Canadian crude, but it also picks up domestic crude in the Bakken region. Our country likes sweet Bakken crude oil from Montana, and then it takes it on to refineries throughout the country. So that is the project we are talking about. This chart shows the project itself, and it shows what is going to happen if we don't approve it. You have to understand, this has been going on now for over 6 years. The President has delayed this project for more than 6 years, but if we don't build the pipeline to move our domestic crude in the United States, then Canada will build pipelines to the west coast and that oil will go to China by tanker ship and be refined in China. Again, we go through all these different discussions, but the reality is the oil will be produced. The question is, Do we want to have that oil here in our country or would we rather see it go to China? Of course, if it goes to China, then not only does that affect our ability to use the oil in our country because we don't have the infrastructure to move it around safely and cost-effectively, but we also then continue to import oil from the Middle East. I will run through a couple more of these charts and bring us up-to- date. It is not like we don't have pipelines. When the President takes more than 6 years to make a decision--having such a hard time with this pipeline--it is not that we don't have a few pipelines in the country. We have millions of miles of pipeline. Of course, this is going to be the latest, greatest state of the art with all the safety features-- something like 53 different safety features that are required as part of the approval process that, as we say, has been going on for more than 6 years. The other point I want to make before we go into the latest status is this is the finding of not one, not two, not three, not four, not five reports by the administration, but in fact the Obama administration's State Department has done five environmental impact statements, three draft statements, two final statements--three draft statements and two final environmental impact statements. Here is what President Obama's report states after studying the environmental impact: ``No significant environmental impact'' according to the U.S. State Department environmental impact statements as a result of the Keystone XL Pipeline. So here we are today, after more than 6 years in the ``approval process'' by the administration. We passed this legislation with 62 votes in the Senate. It passed through the House with about 270 votes in the House, a big bipartisan vote for this legislation. Last Tuesday--last Tuesday we sent it to the President. We sent it to him in the morning and he vetoed it the same day and had it back to us that afternoon. So that was pretty efficient. We send it to him in the morning and--bang--he has it back here in the afternoon. His rationale for vetoing the project is he said it cut short his review process. That is right out of his veto message. It cut short his review process. So for somebody who figured out how to veto it in one day who has been studying it for over 6 years--over 6 years--and he vetoed it because we cut his review process short after more than 6 years. Subsequent to that, the President was asked by the press: Mr. President, if Congress is somehow cutting your process short, when are you going to make a decision? His response to the press--I believe it was last week or earlier this week--he said he is going to make a decision either in a couple weeks or maybe in a couple months but certainly by the end of his term. My question is this, How can there be any process there? Where is the process? What process are you talking about? If he delays it for more than 6 years--a situation where TransCanada, a company that has met every single requirement of the law and regulations--they have met all the requirements for more than 6 years. The six States on the route have all approved the project. All six States on the route have approved the project. It wasn't tough; they had 6 years to do it. The American people overwhelmingly support this project in poll after poll, from 65 to 70 percent. What process is he talking about that was cut short? There is no process there. If you go on for 6 years, where a company has spent millions of dollars, taking 6 years to try to build an $8 billion project that would help us create energy security in this country, working with our closest friend and ally, Canada, what process is he talking about? When asked: When are you going to make a decision as to your process, he said: I don't know, maybe a few weeks, maybe a few months, by the end of my term, anyway. That is 8 years. Isn't this a country of laws? How would you or anyone else feel--any company, large or small, anybody who feels if they comply with the law and they do everything they are supposed to do and they do it over and over again and somebody who is elected to office says, yes, you know, I just don't feel like it. When did we cease to become a country of laws? When did we cease to have a situation where we can rely on the laws and the regulations of this State, whether it is an individual, a family, a community, a company or anything else? So when we look at a project such as this one, that is a question we have to ask ourselves, because if it can happen in this situation, can't it happen in any situation? When do we as a Congress step up and say: We pass the laws. We pass the laws and those laws have to be respected and enforced. Isn't that our job? Isn't that our obligation? Isn't that why the people of this country sent us? I believe it is. It is one thing to say: Well, it is that TransCanada company. They do business in Canada. They do business here. What if it was you? What if it was your company? What if it was 6-plus years of your life? What if it was millions of your dollars? How would you feel about it? Remember, America is the place people throughout history have come to do business. This is where they come to do business because they can count on our laws and they can count on our regulations and they can count on the fact that if they made the investment, they would be able to do business on a certain, dependable basis. What happened to that? When we lose that, what happens to our economy? With that, I would like to turn to my good friend from South Dakota. This pipeline will run through his State, creating jobs and millions of tax dollars for his State.