Debbie Stabenow

Ms. STABENOW

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I appreciate my friend from Ohio yielding for a moment. I wanted to make a short statement as it relates to moving forward on the farm bill and congratulate the House for sending their version of the farm bill to us this morning. Tomorrow it will be our intent--Senator Cochran and I--to go through the motions that it takes to be able to send our farm bill back and ask for a conference committee. I wanted to let all the Members know that. If there is a concern, I would appreciate that Members approach me or Senator Cochran directly because this is an opportunity for us to move forward and actually put together this bill. The farm bill affects 16 million people in this country who work in agriculture, as well as everyone who counts on the great work of our farmers in order to have the healthiest, most affordable food system in the world. Tomorrow it is our intent to move forward on the farm bill, so if there are any questions or concerns from Members, we are happy to work with them.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I think what we are witnessing today are people who have differences in philosophies and want to solve problems with different approaches. I believe the issue before us at noon is a vote on doing no harm. There is not an agreement on both sides of the aisle as to whether we keep the student interest rates as low as possible for an ongoing basis or whether we tie it to market rates going up so that they go up over time. There is not agreement on that. I hope we have an agreement to do no harm. The vote at noon is, let's keep it at 3.4 percent, where it has been, which is, by the way, the market rate. Right now you can go out and get a car--and I encourage people to purchase a new American-made automobile--with a 4-percent interest rate. You can get a mortgage for about 4 percent. Doubling the rates makes no sense, and putting in place something that students are asking us not to do, which starts where we are and goes up over time, does not make sense either. So let's do no harm. Let's vote yes to give us a year. We have people who care about this issue. We can sit down and spend that time working under Chairman Harkin, who is committed to addressing this in a comprehensive way. He is interested in addressing not just the interest rates on subsidized Stafford loans but on all of the issues. There is a range of issues, not the least of which is the $1 trillion that students and families are carrying in this country, which is more than the credit card debt that we have. Let's start with do no harm. If we do that, then 7 million students are not going to be hit with the interest rate hike that is going to be in place. If we do that, we are going to be saying to students: We are not going to see the government making billions of dollars in profits on the backs of students because the loan rates have gone up. So I would encourage everyone--people of different philosophies--to vote yes to give us the time to work out what is clearly a broad comprehensive issue to make sure young people and people going back to college have the opportunity to dream big dreams, to have the same opportunities many of us have had. I went to school on student loans. I went to school on a tuition-and- fees scholarship because of my own family situation growing up. The reality is we have the opportunity to do no harm, and then work together on something comprehensive that does not down the road see students paying 7, 8, 9 or, in the case of what the House did, top out rates at 10.5 percent. I reject that. Colleagues on this side of the aisle reject that. Let's vote yes and do no harm and then get to work in a bipartisan way on the larger problem and solve it. I yield the floor.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Do I understand correctly, though, that for a student next year who took out a loan, it might be higher? If a student took out a loan in year 3, it might be higher? It is my understanding that over time, over the next 3, 4, 5 years, we are looking at rates at least of doubling, if not more. The Senator is saying cap it at 8.25. That is a lot more than doubling of the rates that will happen right now. But is it accurate to say if the year in which you are taking out the loan, depending on whether it is next year, the year after, the year after, that it would be in anticipation that the interest rate would rise?

Ms. STABENOW. I thank the Senator. First, in prefacing this in terms of the number the Senator asked me about before, we will check. I do know there are about 300,000 students in Michigan affected, over 500,000 in California. So that is almost 1 million. So the 2 million the Senator is talking about seems low if those two States together have about 850,000. But certainly we will check. We want to make sure the numbers are right. My question would be: The number the Senator quotes as the interest rate in his proposal, is that a fixed rate or will that go up?

Ms. STABENOW. For next year, though?

Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, if I might respond, this number comes from the Joint Tax Committee. I would be happy to follow up with the Senator on that, but that is where the number comes from.

Ms. STABENOW. Would my friend from Tennessee yield for a question?

Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, before my friend from Rhode Island leaves the floor, I wish to thank him for coming to the floor of the Senate every week to give a message that we need to hear all the time about a serious worldwide crisis. I thank him for his passion and for calling on us to remember that when it is time for our children and grandchildren to ask where we were, I want to say I was with Senator Sheldon Whitehouse and those of us who care deeply about solving these problems. So I thank the Senator from Rhode Island very much. I thank all of our colleagues who have come to the floor today and have spoken on the issue of keeping student loan rates low. I know Senator Blumenthal was here a few minutes ago. Our chairman, Senator Harkin, has come to the floor, as well as Senator Brown, Senator Sanders, and Senator Reed, who has been such a passionate advocate and leader on this issue. I thank as well our Presiding Officer from Massachusetts for her passion in keeping us on point. I thank Senator Boxer and Senator Murray and others who have come to the floor, including Senator Kay Hagan, who is leading this fight with Senator Jack Reed in what we intend to do tomorrow, which is focus on a very simple issue: Let's not do harm to students as it relates to student loan rates going up, while we fix the larger problem of affordability of college. Let's be very clear. The majority of the Senate voted on June 6 to keep student loan rates at 3.4 percent--the majority. When we run for office, if one person gets one more vote than the other person, that person wins the election, and that is a majority. So it is unfortunate that a majority could not have ruled here, but because of the rules of the Senate, because of the rights of the minority and the filibuster and so on, there have been objections from Republican colleagues, and we have had to now go through this other process to overcome a filibuster. We had the vote, and the majority of the Senate voted to keep rates low for students. Let's make that very clear. However, in order to overcome a Republican filibuster, we need 60 votes to block that filibuster. So tomorrow is about that vote. We all know that on July 1 the interest rate for students jumped from 3.4 to 6.8 percent. Let's all look at what is happening around in our communities with our families right now as well. Keep in mind, you can get a mortgage or a car loan for about 4 percent. So we are now seeing student loan interest rates higher than that. Under proposals we have seen predominantly coming from the other side of the aisle that would have those rates go up and up based on ``the market,'' we could see those rates go to 7, 8, 9, 10 percent in the future. It makes no sense. If you can get a car loan, if you can get a mortgage for about 4 percent, what about students? Why are we now in a situation where college students are seeing their interest rates on their student loans double--double--or higher, which has been proposed by many in this body? To add insult to injury, if we do not fix this the Federal Government will start to gain huge profits, as our Presiding Officer has reminded us over and over--more than $50 billion just this year on the backs of students and families. So what we are looking at right now is billions of dollars in profits on the backs of students if the rate is doubled. If it goes higher, if it goes to the 7 or 8 percent being talked about in the Republican proposals or the 8.5 percent that was passed in the House, we are looking at over $100 billion--more than that--in profits by the Federal Government on the backs of students and families, right at a time when they are just trying to hold it together. They want to go to college. We want them to go to college. We want them to get an education. We benefit as a country from making sure we can outcompete and outeducate the competition around the world. Yet those who say they care about students are proposing options that would increase costs for students and profits for the Federal Government. We should not be making profits on the backs of students who are trying to go to college. So our proposal that we will be voting on tomorrow would lock in the 3.4-percent interest rate on student loans to make sure students and families can afford college. I would like to share a couple of e-mails I have received out of thousands. I want to thank students and families all across Michigan who have engaged in this effort, who have gone to DontDoubleMyRate to get information and tell their story, who have come to my Facebook page and have called us and e-mailed us to tell us how this impacts them. Corey, a student right now at Central Michigan University in Mount Pleasant, MI, wrote to me about this issue and said: I am asking you to please not allow my student loan rates to be doubled. I am a hard-working and respectful student. I make all of my payments. I go to class and do well. I work hard and am grateful for the chance to get a higher education, but if student loan rates go up I would be left to make a decision whether or not school would be affordable. Whether or not school would be affordable--that is what this issue comes down to. If we do not fix this, and fix it in a responsible way that keeps costs low, students like Corey and 7 million students across our country will have to rethink their college plans. This issue should not be controversial. This is not a partisan issue. If I were to pick a partisan issue on the floor of the Senate, it would not be student loan interest rates and the cost of college. I would think this is one of the areas on which we could come together. Just last year we kept the interest rate low. We passed, for a year, an extension of the 3.4-percent rate. It was good enough to do last year; I do not know why we cannot keep that going while we tackle the long-term solutions. This should not be partisan. I know there are people of goodwill on both sides of the aisle trying to figure out something. But, unfortunately, because of the desire of the other side of the aisle and the desire of the House to have this market based and float with the marketplace and go up with market interest rates, we find ourselves in the situation where it is even worse to pass one of the proposals that has been made rather than just allow the rates to go back up to the fixed rate of 6.8 percent, which is really crazy. Republicans, in what we see in the House of Representatives, cap the rates at 8.5 percent and 10.5 percent. Now, again, remember, right now you can get a car loan--you know, 15, 20 years, however long you finance your car: 10, 15, 20 years--at 4 percent; have a 30-year mortgage at 3.5, 4 percent, 4.5 percent, 5 percent--all less than what we are talking about for a student to be able to get a loan to be able to go to college, which we all say we want them to do. We are lending to banks at a much lower rate, as our Presiding Officer has reminded us over and over. I do understand it is a 24-hour lending rate. I do understand it is a different structure. But, still, if we can lend to banks at 0.75 percent, we cannot even fix a rate of 3.4 percent for students, when we have a tremendous stake in their willingness to go to school and work hard and be successful? So under the plans we are seeing on the other side of the aisle and the plan we have seen in the House of Representatives, we would see rates go to 7, 8, 9 percent; some of them tapped out at 10.5 percent-- 10.5 percent. It makes no sense. Corey from Central continues with his e-mail: From the time we first start learning, we are encouraged to attend college and get a good job so that we can be a part of helping this country grow. I am simply asking you to help continue to make this an affordable option for me, and many others like me. Our country will not grow without a strong middle class, and we will not have a middle class if people cannot get an education to get the skills they need, go to college, dream big dreams, and know they can be successful in attaining those dreams. We are saying we need to do everything possible to make sure students can afford to go to college and that they do not come out with $20,000, $30,000, $50,000 of debt. I talk to medical students coming out with $100,000, $150,000 of debt. You could buy a house for that. Then, rather than making a decision maybe to go into primary care, where we certainly need doctors, they have to decide to go into a specialty because they have to pay off their student loans. There are stories like that all across our country--judgments being made. So I have a very different view in terms of how we go about this--not just in the short run but what we lock in for the long term. The proposals on the other side lock in rates that will go up as interest rates go up. I do not think we should be doing that. Here is another e-mail from Matthew in Royal Oak: Students are not asking for a bailout like the one Wall Street got, just an opportunity to obtain an affordable education so we can compete in a global economy. That is what we are talking about: Corey and Matthew and 7 million other people. Let me conclude by saying that for me, this is very personal because I would not have been able to go to college, I would not have been able to be the first one to get a 4-year college degree in my own family if people I did not know in Michigan and in Washington had not decided that an affordable education was important to have. My dad was very ill when I was in high school. I had great grades, but we did not have very much money. Because of a tuition-and-fees scholarship I received and student loans I was able to go to college. I want to make sure that every young person who wants to go to college can do that, and that whether we know them or not--we know their name, we know where they live--it does not matter. Nobody knew this red- headed, freckle-faced kid from Clare, and yet because somebody put a value on education and its importance to our country, I have had the opportunities I have had in my life. I think that is what this vote is about. Tomorrow is about keeping the rates low, giving us time to address the broader issues around affordability. There is a lot of work to do. We can do that on a bipartisan basis, but first we need to start by doing no harm. That is the vote tomorrow. I hope we will see a ``yes'' vote on the Keep Student Loans Affordable Act. Thank you, Madam President.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I rise today because tomorrow in the Senate Chamber we will vote on whether to let student interest rates double from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent. This should not be controversial. This should have been done before July 1. Now we are trying to retroactively fix this. We have attempted to bring this to the floor and vote on it before on a number of occasions. We have seen a Republican filibuster blocking us from doing that. This week I am hopeful we can get the necessary bipartisan vote to overcome the filibuster and be able to send a very strong message to students across the country that we understand this is a huge issue for them and their families, a huge cost, and that raising the rates will only be another barrier to creating opportunity for students in the future and, frankly, having a middle class in this country. What is happening to the students and the debt involved is very serious, and it is stopping many young people from being able to move ahead and achieve their dreams. At a time when interest rates for everything else are at historic lows, why in the world would we double the interest rates for young people or older people going back to school who are trying to get an education and the work skills they need? Why would we allow that when we can get mortgage rates right now from 3\1/2\ to 4 percent or a car loan for about 4 percent? I could go on and on. Here is the shocking thing. If the rates are doubled--if in fact what kicked in on July 1 is allowed to stand--it will mean a huge profit for the Federal Government. That also makes no sense. It will mean some $50 billion for the Federal Government, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Why should the government profit off the backs of students who are struggling to get an education so they can get ahead? We have a fundamental disagreement in this body between the majority of Democrats and the majority of Republicans on that question. It is a fundamental difference about what we should pick as a priority for our country. Frankly, for nearly 300,000 students in Michigan who will be forced to pay an extra $1,000 on their loans this year, it makes no sense. I remember growing up in a little town in northern Michigan, working hard, getting good grades in my small class of 93 people, being at the top of the class, and wanting to go to college. But my dad became very ill and we couldn't afford for me to go to school. I was the first one to get a college degree in my family. I managed to go to school because the State of Michigan and the Federal Government at that time placed a value on educating kids like me, who didn't have a lot of money but had worked hard and had good grades and thought we ought to have a shot. I had a tuition and fee scholarship, and so I was able to go to college. I put that scholarship together with working on campus and with student loans and I was able to get a bachelor's degree. I was then able to go on and get a master's degree and came out of school having to pay off the student loans. But because some folks--who didn't know this redheaded, freckle-faced kid from Clare--decided this was an important value for America, this was an important value for our State, I had a chance to work hard and follow the rules and make it. And who would have thought then I would have the opportunity to be here today? I want that same opportunity for every young person in Michigan and every person going back to school in this country. Fundamentally that is what this is about. It is not about numbers. It is not about numbers. It is about whether, when we subsidize all kinds of other things--banks, and even the farmers I fight for, to help them with their crop insurance, and subsidizing rates for insurance to do things because it is good for the economy--why in the world would we walk away from that most basic set of values when it comes to our students? Colleagues on the other side of the aisle say: Let's do something where we peg a rate. It is like a credit loan teaser rate. Sign up now at zero interest or 3 percent, let's put it there, and then over time it balloons like crazy and you are stuck. Those are the kinds of proposals we have gotten from the other side of the aisle. It sounds good now, but it is horrible later. I know a lot of folks who signed up for variable rate mortgages and balloon mortgages who ended up in the same situation. We are saying: No, we want a fixed rate. We want it low and we want to make sure students are placed as a priority. So after all kinds of negotiations, we have said: OK, you don't want to continue the rate for 2 years. Let's do this: Let's continue it for 1 year at the low rate of 3.4 percent, and then let's all get together to figure out what to do about helping out with this $1 trillion in student loan debt right now. That is the student loan debt across this country. We need to help them figure out how to refinance that lower rate and then we can deal with the long-term cost. That is what we are trying to do. It doesn't make sense, when student loan debt in the country is over $1 trillion, when students are already sacrificing and scraping together the money to get an education, to double the rates on those student loans. So when we look at this, we are looking not only at today but over time. In every proposal that has been put forward--and there are a lot of folks working, and I know there are conversations going on with folks who want to solve this problem--they all end up with the rates going up higher than even doubling the rate to 6.8. Why does that make any sense? Why would folks propose that? We have a fundamental difference in how we view this issue of the cost of college and whether there is a role for the Federal Government. Do we as a country have a stake in keeping costs as low as possible, interest rates as low as possible? I would argue, yes, we do. And if we want to stop subsidizing things, I can think of a whole long list of what we could stop subsidizing. We could stop subsidizing the top five wealthiest oil companies in the country, which have more profits than anyone in the world. We could stop subsidizing them. We could stop the loopholes that are taking our jobs overseas. We could stop doing that. There are a lot of things we could stop that would save money. We should not put all this on the backs of students. We should not say that somehow we should make a profit to pay down the debt on the backs of students, when in fact there are so many other areas where we should be asking people to chip in a little bit more, not those who are already working hard to get a basic education. We know we have to have a comprehensive approach, but until that work is done we should keep interest rates low. We should keep them where they are. And I have great confidence in Chairman Harkin and his committee, and Senator Jack Reed, who has taken so passionately the lead on this. Senator Kay Hagan and Senator Reed are our leaders on the bill we will be voting on tomorrow. Senator Warren, and so many others--Senator Boxer I know has spoken out so many times, as has Senator Sanders, and on and on, as well as the Presiding Officer. We all care passionately about creating a long-term solution for students that keeps costs low so we can keep dreams high and success high in achieving those dreams. I wish to thank so many for signing petitions and sharing their stories with us. I would urge folks to get involved in the conversation by joining us on Twitter, with the hash tag ``don't double my rate.'' There is a lot of conversation going on and information that folks can find out about what we are doing. I want to read two e-mails from constituents of mine. Corey, a student at Central Michigan University, sent me an e-mail about how this would make it difficult for him to continue his education. As one of the taxpayers that you represent, I am asking you to please not allow my student loan rates to be doubled. I am a hard-working and respectful student. I make all of my payments. I go to class and do well. I work hard and am grateful for the chance to get a higher education, but if student loan rates go up I would be left to make a decision whether or not school will be affordable. From the time we first start learning, we are encouraged to attend college and get a good job so that we can be a part of helping this country grow. I am simply asking you to help continue to make this an affordable option for me, and many others like me. That story can be replicated all across Michigan and all across the country: Will young people be able to stay in school? Will they be able to come out of school and get the job they want versus aiming for a job that relates to their ability to pay back their student loans? Then an e-mail from Matthew in Royal Oak: Students are not asking for a bailout like the one that Wall Street got, just an opportunity to obtain an affordable education so we can compete in the global economy. That is what this vote is about tomorrow. The Keep Student Loans Affordable Act simply says we are going to tackle this very serious issue for families across the country in two steps: keep the interest rates low where it is for a year, and then make a commitment to work together to fix the larger issue of the cost of college going forward. I don't think there is a more important issue for the future of maintaining or recreating a middle class in this country than making sure we can allow everyone who wants to go on to college and get the skills they need to be successful in tackling and meeting their dreams than to make sure that college is affordable. A big piece of that is the interest rate on the loans that millions of students are taking out right now and counting on us to make sure they are affordable. Tomorrow the question will be whether a filibuster continues on this issue. I think folks probably scratch their heads. We had a majority of people who voted--all Democrats--before to continue the interest rates at the current level of 3.4 percent. Because of the nature of the Senate and how things work, if there is an objection we have to go through this process to be able to overcome what is essentially a filibuster and we have to get 60 votes. So tomorrow we are going to have to get 60 votes, which means we need a handful of Republican colleagues to join with us to make a statement that we should continue interest rates at the low level while we work together in a bipartisan way to solve the long-term problem. We have over $1 trillion in this country in student loan debt. It is more than credit card debt. I was surprised to see that. We have to help families tackle that debt. I would like to see refinancing options when interest rates are so low, and many of those are much higher interest rates. We need to tackle that. We need to tackle the overall costs of going to college and what is happening for low-income students as well as middle-class students. There is a lot to get done, but it has to start by doing no harm. And that is the vote tomorrow: Do no harm. Let's make sure we at least keep the rates low now. We know there is a philosophical difference about whether we should actually help subsidize student loans. I think, of all the things we could subsidize, I would start with education. Tomorrow the question is, Do we do no harm? Do we keep the interest rate where it is while we work out a long-term solution? Do we make a very strong statement that if we are going to set something as a priority for this country, if we are going to outcompete and outeducate in a global economy, it has to start with making sure advanced higher education is affordable for everyone who wants to work hard and play by the rules and go to college? That is what the fight is about. That is what the vote is about tomorrow. I hope we will have an overwhelming bipartisan vote. If not, we are going to continue to do everything possible to tackle this issue because I think families across America are counting on us. I yield the floor.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate Westview Orchards of Romeo, MI on its 200th anniversary. Since its founding in 1813, the orchard has been a part of Michigan's way of life. It is where families go to pick their own peaches and strawberries in the summer, and where they go to pick apples, take wagon rides and enjoy the cider mill in the fall. It has been a source of fresh food since the War of 1812 was being waged from Michigan to New England to New Orleans. Michigan was a prime battleground during the War of 1812, and the British were winning every major engagement. The Union Jack flew over settlements in Michigan from Mackinac Island to Detroit. By the summer of 1813, it seemed likely that when the war ended, the Michigan Territory would belong to the British Empire. That all changed with the Battle of Lake Erie, when American forces defeated the British Navy and changed the tide of the war. One of the heroes of the battle was Michael Bowerman, who had come from New York to fight for his country. In gratitude for his service, the United States offered him a plot of land in Michigan. And so it was that Michael Bowerman packed up his belongings and set out to start a new life for himself and an enduring legacy for his family. In his pockets, he carried a few peach pits from his father's farm in New York. He found his homestead in present-day Romeo, built a cabin and founded the farm that is today known as Westview Orchards. It started with a small garden and orchard, with the family transporting the fruit by horse and wagon to Port Huron to sell at the farmers market. He later expanded the farm to include livestock and field crops. When a bear attacked one of his pigs, he came to the rescue and fought off the bear, earning him the nickname ``Fearless Mike.'' As the years passed, his farm and his family grew, and in 1880, his son, Byron, planted 10 acres of peach trees that laid the foundation for Romeo's famous peach festival that is held every Labor Day Weekend. For the last 200 years, the descendants of ``Fearless Mike'' have carried on his legacy. His sons, daughters, grandsons, granddaughters, great-grandsons, great-granddaughters and more--have worked tirelessly to build the wonderful orchard that serves thousands of families in Michigan every year. One great-grandson in particular made critical innovations on the farm. Harvey Bowerman took over the farm from his father, Byron, and his brother, George. Harvey modernized the farm and built the foundation on which it stands today. He built the white clapboard house that the family still calls home. He and his son, Armand, transitioned the farm from using workhorses to using tractors. Harvey sold the hog and dairy operations, focusing the business on growing fruits and vegetables. He also added a grading room and built a custom peach grader and de-fuzzer machine to improve efficiency. His greatest innovation, though, was forced upon him in August of 1930. It was a typical August day in an unusually good harvest year, and Harvey was loading his truck full of peaches from his record harvest to sell at Detroit's Eastern Market 40 miles to the south. Harvey was not the only grower having a record year, though. As he was preparing to leave, he received a call from Eastern Market that said, ``Don't come down, Harvey. The market is flooded with so many peaches we can't sell `em all.'' As every farmer knows, once you harvest your crops you have to get them to the market quickly before they spoil. In desperation, Harvey tried something different: knowing that the Detroit Urban Railroad trolley had a stop just down the street, he turned his truck around so the back was facing the road in front of the farmhouse. His success selling the peaches to passengers forever changed the way he and his descendants marketed their fruit. Harvey passed the farm to his son, Armand, and when Armand suddenly passed away in 1981, Westview's fifth and sixth generations took over. Today, the family farm is in the hands of Katherine Bowerman Roy, her daughters Katrina Roy Schumacher and Abigail Jacobson, and Abigail's husband, Bill. Westview Orchards is the oldest farm in Macomb County. It is a place where families from across the county and beyond visit to pick their own fruit, take wagon rides around the farm, and enjoy the corn maze, ice cream shop, cider mill and farmers market. Westview Orchards is a true Michigan success story, born of hard work, dedication and a commitment to innovation. I congratulate the entire family--from ``Fearless Mike'' Bowerman to Katherine, Katrina, Abigail and Bill--on 200 wonderful years.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, as chair of the Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee, I rise today to speak about the urgent need for comprehensive immigration reform. I too, along with the distinguished Senator from New Jersey, wish to indicate that it is very good news that this is not only good in a number of ways to have a legal system that is working for the economy, but we are actually going to see deficit reduction. Saving money as well as providing certainty in the economy for workers and businesses, a legal system that works for people, for families, business workers, is extremely positive. I wish to congratulate all of my colleagues and friends on both sides of the aisle who have worked so hard: the leader of the Judiciary Committee, the leader of the Immigration Subcommittee, and all of those on both sides of the aisle who have worked so hard to make this happen. I particularly thank Senator Dianne Feinstein, Senator Bennet, and others who have worked very hard on a portion of the bill that relates to agriculture. In agriculture, we need comprehensive immigration reform. It is critically important for farmers from Michigan, Wisconsin, Alabama, California, and everywhere in between. As you know, we passed our farm bill with wide bipartisan support a week ago. In the debate, we talked a lot about risk management and making sure that farmers have a safety net when they experience a disaster, whether it be a drought, a late freeze, or other severe weather. But what about when the weather is good, the Sun shines, there is enough rain but not too much, and it falls at the right times and the crops grow and ripen, and then there aren't enough people to harvest it, which has happened too many times in Michigan? When that happens, crops unpicked, unsorted, and unsold rot in the fields. In California, last year peach growers saw much of their crop rot on the trees because they couldn't find enough workers. One farmer outside Marysville, CA, said he was losing 5 percent of his peaches every day-- every day--because he couldn't get enough farm workers and the system didn't work. And this year grapefruit growers are already behind on picking by 2 weeks because of the labor shortage. We need a legal system that works. In Alabama, in 2011 thousands of farm workers fled the State as a new immigration law was passed and undermined the ability to get quality legal workers. Brian Cash, a tomato grower on Chandler Mountain, said that one day he had 64 workers and the next day he had 11 when the new law made it a crime not to carry valid documents at all times, which forced police to check on anyone they suspected was here illegally. The way this was put together, it was not workable. So we need a system that works, that is realistic, that makes sure everyone, in fact, who is here is documented as legally here, but it has to be done in a way that works for farmers and workers. Because Brian didn't have enough workers to harvest his 125 acres, he watched his tomato crop rot in the field, and that loss cost him $100,000. In my home State of Michigan last year, we couldn't get enough workers to help harvest the crops up and down the west side of the State. Asparagus grower John Bakker, who runs the Michigan Asparagus Advisory Board, reports that 97 percent of Michigan asparagus is harvested by hand and almost all of our hand-harvesting labor comes from migrant workers. That means much of our asparagus crop, unfortunately, was left in the field last year. As you can see here, this was all left in the field. All of this is what has happened. Alan Overhiser from Casco Township, MI, grows peaches and apples on 225 acres. He typically hires 25 to 30 seasonal workers. Right now he only has two. He said: I think one thing people don't understand is that people we normally hire are skilled at this work. It's not just something that everyone can do. I think that's probably the myth out there. The reality is that we're in the business of providing safe, high-quality food that people want to buy. It takes a skilled labor force. It's hard work. They just aren't everywhere. So we need to have a legal system that farmers can count on to have the skilled labor they need. Dianne Smith, the executive director of the Michigan Apple Committee, said that because last year's crop harvest was lost to a weather disaster, many farm workers, of course, moved on to different jobs. In fact, she said that apple growers from Michigan to Washington are desperate to get back the skilled workers they need and that growers are hearing that until immigration is worked out, until there is a legal system they can trust and count on, workers they have worked with for years aren't willing to come back to the United States. Russ Costanza grows squash, peppers, cucumbers, tomatoes, and eggplants on his Michigan farm. In the 1960s every farm worker his father hired came from nearby Benton Harbor, MI. As of 2010 not a single worker came from that city. Again, there are the challenges of finding farm workers, those who are skilled and who want to do this kind of work. Fred Leitz, who also farms near Benton Harbor, says American workers don't want to work in the fields. He has reached out to find workers and says it is a particular kind of work that most American workers are not interested in doing. In 2009 migrant workers held 200 of the 225 jobs at his apple orchard, and he said he would be out of business without their help. He has to have a legal system that works so that he knows he is following the law, so that people know they are following the law, they can count on it, and they can have the skilled workers they need every year. Today, 77 percent of our country's farm workers are foreign born. These are men and women who work in extremely difficult jobs. They are people who need and want to follow the law. We have to make sure the law works. We need immigration reform to make sure we have an accountable system. For our workers who put in so much effort all year long only to watch their crops rot in the fields, we need immigration reform. We need a legal system that works. If they do not have workers to pick all of their crops, then farmers are going to plant fewer acres. The effect of a labor shortage can be just as devastating and disastrous on our food supply and our families' grocery bills as a drought or a freeze. So there is no two ways about it. We need to pass this bill. We need immigration reform. We need a system that is accountable, that is credible, that is legal, and that works. Farmers and farm worker organizations are strongly endorsing this bill because fixing our immigration system is what the bill before us is all about. I am very pleased people have come together--those representing workers, those representing farmers--to find something that actually is a good balance and works for everyone in this sector of the economy. This bill first creates a way for current undocumented workers to obtain legal status through the blue card program if they have worked at least 100 work days or 575 hours from January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2012. All the blue card holders receive biometric identification, and employers will be required to provide a record of their employment to the Department of Agriculture as well. To be eligible then for a green card, the workers must have worked for at least 100 days per year for 8 years prior to enactment or 150 days for 5 years prior to enactment, and they also would have to show that they paid taxes on the income they earned while in blue card status and that they have not been convicted of any felony or violent misdemeanor as well. Next, the bill also establishes an agriculture worker program to assign work visas for immigrant workers who don't wish to live in the United States but want to be able to come to the United States and work legally. Workers must register with USDA and pay a registration fee, and the USDA will create an electronic employment monitoring system similar to our current student and exchange visitor information system to track temporary workers. This bill ensures a review of the visa cap after 5 years so we can see how the program is working for farmers and for farm workers. It also gives the Secretary of Agriculture the power to increase the number of visas in an emergency, as in a situation where we don't have enough workers and the crops are actually rotting in the fields. In addition, any workers who are unemployed for more than 60 days or breach a contract with an employer will have to leave the United States. Furthermore, the bill provides much needed certainty for farmers and for workers when it comes to wages. Under the bill farmers will know how much to plan to spend on help, and workers will know how much to plan on earning for their work. Finally, farm employers must hire eligible and qualified American workers before filling any shortages of workers through the visa program. So, as always--and certainly a high priority for me--we want to make sure American workers have the first opportunity for these jobs. It is only in a situation where there are not Americans applying and wishing to have this employment that we would then turn to those who are legally here and who are foreign born. We are the top agricultural export country in the world--the top. That is one of the bright spots for us. As I have said so many times, 16 million people work in this industry. We can't continue to be the top export country if we leave crops in the fields or on the trees because we don't have a legal system that works and we don't have legal employees who are here, workers who are here legally and who can do the work. So we need to pass this bill. There are many reasons to pass this bill. One is to make sure we are actually picking from the fruit trees and not letting things fall and rot on the ground--the precious food we are growing across the country. We need to pass this bill because our food supply and the world's food supply depend on being able to get the crops out of the fields. We have done a great job working together to produce a 5-year farm bill that addresses everything from research and support for farmers when they have disasters to conservation practices, trade, local food systems, rural development, and on and on. The one piece we can do now that will really give American agriculture a positive one-two punch is to pass this bill. This bill is a balance. It has been worked out among all those involved in the agricultural economy, both from a business standpoint and a worker standpoint. Everyone is very clear: The system is broken. It doesn't work. It doesn't work for anybody right now. So we need a system that works, that is accountable, that has the right kind of balance, and that, of course, puts American workers first but allows our farmers to have the legal workers they need as well in that process. This bill makes sense, and I urge my colleagues to support it. I yield the floor.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. That truly is what we are trying to inspire with this innovation provision we are trying to help companies think outside the box in how they can improve their processes. Their efforts in both energy generation from waste and land conservation are both excellent examples that they are doing so.

Ms. STABENOW. I appreciate the Senator mentioning Verso, since they also have a mill in Quinnesec, MI and recently made a significant investment in upgrading its energy system. It is our intention that products that are sourced with innovative sourcing strategies like forest certification systems and products that have improved their manufacturing are included in the program.

Ms. STABENOW. I thank the Senator for raising this important issue. In Michigan the same industries employ over 24,600 people and I agree that these jobs are vital to the economy. I was pleased to be able to lay out a clearer path forward in this farm bill for the inclusion of forest products in USDA's Biobased Markets Program.

Ms. STABENOW. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the Leahy amendment.

Ms. STABENOW. Yes, it is our intent to include forest products that apply an innovative approach to growing, harvesting, sourcing, procuring, processing, manufacturing, or application of biobased products. Products should be included regardless of the date of entry of the product into the marketplace.

Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, let me just say in conclusion that I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure there is a guaranteed source of funding for the citrus trust fund. I understand the devastation to an entire industry that he is speaking about to and look forward to working with him.

Ms. STABENOW. I see the distinguished Senator from North Dakota on the floor. This is Senator Heitkamp's first farm bill we are about ready to vote on. She has been an extraordinary voice and really hit the ground running. It is my pleasure to yield 5 minutes to her.

Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, at this point I want to take a moment before we vote today to recognize folks who have worked so hard to get us to this point. First of all, I thank my colleagues in advance for coming together one more time and leading for rural America--for farmers, for ranchers, for the 16 million people who have jobs because of agriculture in this country. It has been a long road for the Agriculture Reform, Food, and Jobs Act, and I have been blessed and pleased to have a wonderful partner and ranking member, the distinguished Senator from Mississippi. He has been a partner every step of the way, and I thank him and look forward--as the House hopefully this time will complete their work--to having the opportunity to go to conference and crafting an agreement we can then present back to the Senate. I can't thank Senator Cochran and his staff enough for their wonderful partnership. We started this last year. We had 3 weeks that the farm bill was on the floor of the Senate. We had 73 votes, adopted 42 amendments, and we took that as the basis for the bill this year. Once the House did not take up the bill--and, in my judgment, walked away from rural America last year--we had to come back and do it again, so we used the work product the Senate did last year as the basis of our work, and we had 2 weeks of debate on the floor of the Senate. We have added 14 more amendments to the bill that is in front of us. So I thank the majority leader for his hard work and leadership and patience. As always, he knows how important agriculture is to our economy, how important it is to support rural communities and families and consumers around our country. I appreciate that he has not just once but twice given us precious time on the Senate floor so that we could do our job in standing up for rural America and for consumers across this country. I am proud we once again voted--or are about to vote today--in a bipartisan way to move this bill forward. This bill has been bipartisan from start to finish, and I believe that is the reason for our success. I am grateful to colleagues who have worked in such a diligent way on both sides of the aisle. There are many leaders on both sides of the aisle on this bill. We wouldn't be here today without leadership on both sides of the aisle, and I am very grateful for that. This is how the Senate is designed to work, where people who care very deeply on both sides of an issue can sit down--in our case, around a table in the Senate agriculture room--look each other in the eye, talk to each other, listen, and make the compromises necessary to come together with a balanced bill. That is what we did. Last year we passed the farm bill, as I said before, in a bipartisan way as well. The House Agriculture Committee passed a bipartisan farm bill last year, but for whatever reason the full House didn't consider the bill. It was allowed to expire. The good news is that this year it looks as though it is going to be different. That is good news for rural America and the men and women who work hard every day to give us the safest, most affordable, most abundant food supply in the world--in the world. I thank my incredible staff, who have done this now not once but twice. Actually, because we engaged and had a work product when the supercommittee deficit commission was operating, we have actually done this three times. I think they could do farm bills in their sleep. Hopefully they have not been sleeping when they have been writing this one, but I am very grateful for their leadership. I thank Chris Adamo, my terrific staff director for the Agriculture Committee, who is living and breathing these issues every minute and only takes occasional breaks to go fly fishing in Michigan. We have a historic agreement on conservation and crop insurance in this bill thanks to his leadership and that of our team. Jonathan Coppess, our chief counsel, and Joe Shultz, our economist extraordinaire, who understand the ins and outs of agriculture like nobody else, have done so much as we have transitioned in this bill toward market-based risk management tools for our farmers. Jonathan Cordone, our general counsel, crossed every ``t'' and dotted every ``i'' in this bill, and frankly, there are a lot of them. He has been keeping track of all the amendments and making sure this process runs smoothly. Karla Theiman, who leads our livestock and dairy issues, has helped make the energy title something we could really be proud of. I am very grateful for all her leadership and hard work. Tina May, who wrote our original conservation title and then decided to go have a baby, is amazing. She knows more about conservation than anyone I know, and we are very proud that not only the conservation title in the Senate but one that is very similar in the House bears the mark of her hard work and leadership. I do want to note that Jonathan Coppess had a son during the last farm bill and Tina had a son during this farm bill. So I am not sure what it is about farm bills, but we will see what comes next. One thing about Tina's maternity leave is that it allowed us to get the T2 team back together. Kevin Norton came back from the USDA to work with Catie Lee, as they picked up very excellently the heavy load and made it look easy. Thanks to them, our country will have healthy wildlife habitats and clean, fishable waters for generations to come. Jacqlyn Schneider, who is another of our farm bill veterans, ably led our nutrition team and has done such a wonderful job. She has done so much for the diversity of American agriculture through organics, fruits and vegetables, and all the things we call specialty crops, as well as Jess Taylor. Jess has done terrific work in partnership as well. Brandon McBride led our efforts to reorganize the rural development title and worked so hard this year to make sure the energy title continued to grow the economy in rural America. Russ Behnam is our expert on technology issues--biotechnology issues--on crop protection and has lent very important expertise to our efforts. I am grateful. Cory Claussen led our efforts on dairy last year, and his hard work led to the major advances we have made in this bill for beginning farmers and ranchers as well as for our veterans who want to get into agriculture. I am very proud that in our bill we have a new agriculture liaison for our veterans. So many of our men and women coming home are from small communities around America, and they want to have the opportunity to go into farming, and we want to help them do that. Cory is also leading our CFTC efforts, so Cory's work is just getting started. Hanna Abou-El-Seoud, who kept the trains running on time, made sure we were all prepared and prepped--no easy job as well. Alexis Stanczuk and Kyle Varner, who is the newest member of our team, have once again done a great job doing whatever needed to be done in order to help us be successful. Jessie Williams, Nicole Hertenstein, Jacob Chaney, and our entire great team on the committee have helped us to get to this point. I also wish to say thank you to my chief of staff Dan Farough, who manages our personal office; Matt VanKuiken, my terrific legislative director who followed the floor procedure and made sure everything was happening as it should; Bill Sweeney, my great deputy chief of staff; Cullen Schwarz, my communications director; and Ben Becker, our press secretary who made sure we were telling the story of rural America and this farm bill and the reforms in it every day. We couldn't have done it without them and our entire team, Matt Williams, Will Eberle, and Alex Barriger. I wish to thank my State team and all of the outreach efforts led by the outstanding Teresa Plachetka, Kali Fox, Mary Judnich, Brandon Fewins, and Korey Hall, making sure that Michigan is truly represented on every page. This was a bipartisan effort, and I wish to thank everyone on Senator Cochran's team, especially T.A. Hawks and James Gleueck, for their leadership. Once again, Doug Elmendorf's CBO farm team came through thanks to Jim Langley and everyone on their team. I wish to thank Kasey Gillette from Senator Reid's office, who is part of our extended family. It is great working with her again. This is like a second annual family reunion, always having Kasey with us. Nothing could get done around here without our excellent floor staff who have been led by Gary Myrick and Tim Mitchell, and thank you to everybody on our team for their very long hours as usual. Of course, we wouldn't have had anything to pass without the amazing expertise of our legislative counsel team, Michelle Johnson-Wieder and Gary Endicott, and their invaluable assistance; last, but not least, the great team at the USDA and who I believe is an absolutely terrific Secretary of Agriculture, Tom Vilsack, and his General Counsel's Office. There are so many people to thank. I will stop. There are other colleagues who wish to speak. I just want everyone to know that when you take basically 12 different chapters or titles--any one of which could be its own piece of legislation--and put it together in something called a 5-year farm bill, it happens because of a tremendous amount of talent and experience and hard work and it happens because, in our case, we have what I believe is the most seasoned Agriculture Committee former chairs, former Secretary of Agriculture. We have people who know agriculture and care about it deeply. With so much talent and experience, it has been a real privilege--and continues to be--to chair this committee. This farm bill is the product of 2 years of hard work by a long list of talented people. As we vote today, we support 16 million people who depend on agriculture for their jobs. We are providing $24 billion in deficit reduction on a bipartisan basis. We are providing policies that will conserve our land and our water resources for generations to come; that help families who have fallen on hard times keep food on the table for their children; a bill that helps our veterans get started in agriculture; that supports our small towns all across America; and recognizes the diversity of American agriculture and strengthens efforts to give families the opportunity to buy fresh local food in their supermarkets and have it available in their schools. This farm bill creates jobs. I am very proud of the work we have done, and I ask all of our colleagues to support us in voting yes today on this bill. I yield 5 minutes to Senator Klobuchar.

Ms. STABENOW. I would just indicate to my colleague who has been such a strong advocate for his State, for his growers, his people--I am very grateful for that. He has made his case very strongly. I understand that once a tree is exposed to the disease, there is no cure. The tree will die within 5 years. It must be entirely replaced. In fact, as the Senator indicated, this is something that affects many States--not only Florida but Texas, California, Louisiana, Alabama, Arizona, Georgia as well. So I know this is a serious issue for our citrus growers, and I am committed to working with Senator Baucus to make sure the trust funds for citrus, as well as cotton and wool, are included in the final conference committee. I know these are concerns shared by a number of our colleagues, and I look forward to working with the Senator from Florida as well as other colleagues. This is a very important issue.

Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I yield time now to the Senator from Florida for a colloquy with myself.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Subcommittee on Economic Policy be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 6, 2013, at 9:30 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``State of the American Dream: Economic Policy and the Future of the Middle Class?''

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 6, 2013, at 9:15 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 6, 2013, at 11 a.m., in room 215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.