Floor Statements

Madam President, we had a discussion, a very important discussion--I know the Presiding Officer cares a great deal about this topic, as well as Senator Collins and also Senator Boxer--on this issue about boilers. I want to be clear about what is at issue in this debate.

The debate about boilers stems from the fact that the EPA did not originally get the boiler rules right. The agency admitted they did not get them right, and the agency said they needed 15 months to fix the boiler rules. But the courts said the agency could not have the time. They said that EPA could have 30 days to fix the rules.

As colleagues have said, this debate has gone on for so long there is no way it is going to be turned around in 30 days. So I joined in the legislation to give the EPA 15 months to rewrite the rules so as to protect good-paying jobs and communities that are affected by the boiler rules, while ensuring the health of our people and the protection of our environment.

That was 15 months ago. EPA got the time it said it needed to rewrite the rules, and the new final rules will be out within 90 days. I wish to outline for the Senate what the new rules will do.

First, the new rules, as proposed in the legislation, change what constitutes solid waste so that boiler fuels, for example, that are wood waste can be used for fuels such as biomass; and waste from steel mills, as another example, can be used as a fuel, as they are today, rather than to be regulated out of existence as a fuel source.

Second, as proposed in the legislation, the new rules will create an open-to-the-public list of what can and cannot be burned in a boiler. This is going to provide important predictability and certainty to American industry, and it will provide new accountability to our communities. All across the United States, folks are going to be able to know, as a result of these new rules, what can and cannot be actually burned in a boiler.

Third, again, just like the legislation, the rules address the fact that because EPA was unable to get the rules right at the outset, more time is needed for compliance.

I know the distinguished Presiding Officer has been interested in this issue as well: the question of compliance and

the time that would be provided for industries to meet the standards.

In the final rule, the compliance clock is reset with a rule providing additional time for industry to comply. This is like what was in the original legislation. So industry will have 4 years to comply, and Administrator Jackson stated in writing that she will assist any hard-hit community, any company facing extra duress in terms of complying. Administrator Jackson has indicated on a case-by-case basis she will provide additional time to help those communities and to help those companies.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Administrator's letter to me be printed in the Record.

I want to address the discussion we heard from our colleagues, particularly Senator Collins and Senator Boxer, on the key point.

The changes I have described--the fact that we have made the rules changes so that so many of these materials will be treated as fuels, which is important in timber country that I and the distinguished Presiding Officer represent; the fact that we have this new process that provides predictability and certainty about what can be burned in a boiler; the fact that there is the additional time--all of this, in my view, has been spurred by the legislation introduced by the Senator from Maine, Ms. Collins. We ought to make no mistake about it. The important rules changes I have outlined this morning that I think are going to provide certainty and predictability to our businesses--while at the same time protecting the health of our people, the environment of our country--have been spurred because Senator Collins was willing to pick up the challenge and address this issue.

These new rules are going to finally take effect in less than 90 days. But the question I would ask Senators is, who knows what will happen to these important rules that are just about ready for implementation if, in effect, we say, as the amendment does, let's go back to the beginning and talk about addressing this again over 15 months?

If the amendment passes, and the EPA is told--as I have been advised under the text of the amendment--to take another 15 months, in my view, what would happen is, the agency would go back to spending this additional time working to try to get to the point where we are today.

That, in my view, just does not add up. It does not add up for the industries that have been concerned about this. It does not add up for the communities. It does not add up for the health of our people and the protection of our environment.

Let me close with this. Having been involved in the legislation, No. 1, having tried to make clear this afternoon that these important rules, in my view, have been spurred by the legislation Senator Collins has talked about, I wished to state that I intend, and I know others in the Senate will do as well, to watchdog the rules that will be out shortly every step of the way to ensure that they are fully implemented, to hold the Environmental Protection Agency to the commitments that have been made in these rules that are forthcoming, and to ensure that all our communities--all our communities--can see that finally this issue is being addressed and it is being addressed in a way that makes sense for the jobs we are going to need in our communities and to the public health and the environment.

I hope colleagues will look finally at the letter Administrator Jackson has sent me. I think it addresses, in particular, the timetable so many Senators have been concerned about. I have tried to outline some of the other issues that I think are critical, particularly the fact that we have the changes in the definition of solid waste that is so important. A whole host of materials have been added to that list of fuels. That means we can protect the jobs that stem from countries that use--the products that use these materials and at the same time protect the environment.

So this makes sense from the standpoint of a realistic rule on what constitutes a fuel, openness and transparency, because the American people will see what actually can be burned in a boiler. To me--and Senator Boxer has touched on this question of the years that have already gone into this effort--Administrator Jackson, in my view, has gone to substantial lengths to address this timetable that industry has been so concerned about.

In fact, I think it is fair to say that when I add what she has committed to, it is almost the same timetable as in her original legislation. So why in the world would we want to set aside those rules and go back again to the period of starting a new 15-month clock, only to see, in my view, that after those additional 15 months, we would be back to the place we are today, in terms of the rules that will be shortly implemented.

I urge the Senate to reject the amendment. We are going to continue to watchdog this issue until these rules are fully implemented.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I have filed an alternative to the amendment offered by my friend from North Dakota. I ask unanimous consent to call up amendment No. 1817.

Madam President, I yield the floor at this time.

Madam President, the Senator from North Dakota earlier offered a proposal to develop the Keystone Pipeline. I rise to speak on the alternative this afternoon. The alternative ensures expedited approval of the pipeline once the current environmental requirements are met. The alternative ensures that the thousands of jobs associated with building the pipeline go to the workers of the United States. The alternative says there is to be a ban on the export of all Canadian crude oil transported on the Keystone XL Pipeline. Obviously there may be some exceptions, and we have worked out a process to waive that. But if this oil is intended for Americans, then the export restrictions we offer in this amendment ought to be very clear, and that is the heart of the concern reflected by the backers of this amendment.

We believe there is substantial evidence on the Record that this oil will be for the export market. According to the TransCanada application to the Canadian Government, the Canadian oil companies expect to reap as much as $3.9 billion more in annual revenues from the higher prices they can tap once the oil reaches the gulf coast. Once it reaches the gulf coast, it competes at the same prices as other oil supplies on the global market. It will be extremely lucrative for the company and the incentives clearly are for the export market, and that is why the TransCanada application to the Canadian Government even admits that.

The fact is U.S. gulf coast refineries are already responsible for 75 percent of U.S. refined products and those exports are rising rapidly. Gulf coast refineries also have a cost advantage over struggling refineries along the east coast, and in effect the Keystone XL Pipeline can accelerate that advantage and likely accelerate the closure of east coast refining capacity. Less east coast refining capacity means higher gasoline and heating and oil prices for our country.

Perversely, according to a separate report we received from the Energy Information Agency, closure of east coast refineries could result in more imports of gasoline and other petroleum products, some possibly from as far away as India. That is particularly perverse because this is the first time since 1949 when we have actually seen exports of a number of our refined products, such as gasoline, have that dramatic change compared to previous years when we were always importing so many of those energy resources.

So contrary to the assertion by the pipeline backers, more supply from Canada does not automatically mean more U.S. supply and lower prices for U.S. consumers, especially when the evidence indicates that that supply is going to be hardwired by the pipeline and world prices and world markets once it reaches the Gulf of Mexico.

I simply say to Senators: This debate has always been about domestic energy security. That is the centerpiece of the argument that was made by my distinguished friend from North Dakota, and we have heard on television commercials for weeks and weeks. The argument is to build this pipeline, the energy is going to go for Americans. This amendment guarantees that will be the case. In effect, this amendment puts teeth behind all of the debate that this energy is going to be for the American consumer.

I think the evidence shows, particularly as you look at how you are going to see refineries bypassed in the Midwest, that it is going to go to the gulf ports and you are going to see this energy used in the export market. That may be good for the Chinese, but the evidence could indicate it would produce higher prices for Americans. In fact, this trend with respect to putting the export of American energy on auto pilot--assuming that it is automatically good--is something I think we ought to look at more carefully. In this amendment we make it clear we want to protect American workers, American consumers, and we are going to have expedited approval of the pipeline.

The only point I would make is the Secure Rural Schools legislation-- which we are going to be voting in a few minutes--has always been bipartisan. I have been working with Chairman Baucus to ensure that it remains bipartisan. I hope colleagues will keep faith with rural communities, and when it comes up for a vote here in a few minutes, support the Baucus amendment and our rural schools and law enforcement and road programs that are a lifeline to those rural communities.

Mr. President, the Baucus amendment is a lifeline for rural America, particularly for the West and the South, where the Federal Government owns so much of our land. This money is absolutely essential to keep school doors open, to keep cops out there protecting our people, and to provide for our roads program. This program has always been bipartisan since the days when our former colleague Senator Craig and I authored it.

I urge my colleagues to support Chairman Baucus on this amendment to provide a lifeline to rural America.

Madam President, this amendment ensures that the Keystone Pipeline is built by American workers using American steel; that our priority is reasonably priced energy for American families and American businesses, rather than their Chinese competitors. It contains an expedited approval process so that when air and water and environmental laws are complied with, the pipeline application must be approved within 90 days. Put simply, when you build a pipeline that is 2,000 miles across the Nation, our challenge is to do it right.

Madam President, there are two alternatives. This one gives us a chance to do it right for our workers, our businesses, the well-being of all our communities. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, I urge opposition to this amendment. I wish to outline just very briefly why.

First, under this amendment the oil is not going to be going to the United States. This oil is going to be going to the export market, and the TransCanada application to the Canadian Government showed this beyond any question. The Canadian oil companies expect to reap as much as $3.9 billion more in annual revenue from the higher prices they can tap once their oil reaches the gulf coast. It competes at the same price as other oil supplies on the global market--no protection for workers, no protection on the environment, and, I believe, higher prices for American businesses and American consumers.

I urge my colleagues to vote no on the amendment.

Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of patients, practitioners and the American taxpayer to introduce the Medicare Orthotics and Prosthetics Improvement Act of 2012 with my colleagues, Senators Snowe and Grassley.

The current orthotics and prosthetics, O&P, market is ripe for fraud and abuse. Unqualified and dishonest practitioners are taking advantage of patients and Medicare by providing substandard O&P products and manipulating the Medicare payment system. No rule has been implemented on the Federal level which would require these practitioners and providers to be licensed or accredited, despite calls from Congress to do so, and therefore all comers are able to bill Medicare on the taxpayer's dime.

Congress and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services have tried to address this issue in the past, but have come up short. In both 2000 and 2003, Congress passed legislation which should have increased the qualification standards for these providers. Unfortunately, nothing came of these efforts and a decade later we have a system in place that does little to discourage fraud and abuse in these fields.

One department, however, has stepped up and taken the lead on this issue: the Department of Veterans Affairs. After a program evaluation showed that VA O&P Laboratories did not meet quality standards they changed their policy so that only accredited laboratories and individuals may fabricate prostheses and orthoses.

The rest of the country must follow the VA's lead in order to ensure that patients from Oregon to Maine have access to high quality orthotics and prosthetics from a trusted source. Our legislation accomplishes this goal through measures that would improve the oversight of O&P practitioners.

The Medicare Orthotics and Prosthetics Improvement Act would get rid of unqualified practitioners by prohibiting CMS from making any Medicare payment for orthotics and prosthetics to a practitioner who has not secured a license in those states that require licensure. Again, this requirement was issued by CMS in 2005 but has not yet been implemented. Practitioners in states without licensure requirements would need to become accredited in order to continue practicing. The accreditation standard would be identical to the standard adopted by the Veterans Administration in 2004.

The legislation goes a step further by requiring that the Medicare payment is matched to the qualification of the provider and the complexity of the patient's needs and the device provided. This provision will protect patients from suppliers with little or no education and training to provide comprehensive O&P services, while rewarding providers who have secured more advanced training and practice on more complex patients.

These common sense reforms will benefit patients, qualified practitioners and taxpayers. I urge my colleagues to join Senators Snowe, Grassley and me in supporting this legislation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of patients, practitioners and the American taxpayer to introduce the Medicare Orthotics and Prosthetics Improvement Act of 2012 with my colleagues, Senators Snowe and Grassley.

The current orthotics and prosthetics, O&P, market is ripe for fraud and abuse. Unqualified and dishonest practitioners are taking advantage of patients and Medicare by providing substandard O&P products and manipulating the Medicare payment system. No rule has been implemented on the Federal level which would require these practitioners and providers to be licensed or accredited, despite calls from Congress to do so, and therefore all comers are able to bill Medicare on the taxpayer's dime.

Congress and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services have tried to address this issue in the past, but have come up short. In both 2000 and 2003, Congress passed legislation which should have increased the qualification standards for these providers. Unfortunately, nothing came of these efforts and a decade later we have a system in place that does little to discourage fraud and abuse in these fields.

One department, however, has stepped up and taken the lead on this issue: the Department of Veterans Affairs. After a program evaluation showed that VA O&P Laboratories did not meet quality standards they changed their policy so that only accredited laboratories and individuals may fabricate prostheses and orthoses.

The rest of the country must follow the VA's lead in order to ensure that patients from Oregon to Maine have access to high quality orthotics and prosthetics from a trusted source. Our legislation accomplishes this goal through measures that would improve the oversight of O&P practitioners.

The Medicare Orthotics and Prosthetics Improvement Act would get rid of unqualified practitioners by prohibiting CMS from making any Medicare payment for orthotics and prosthetics to a practitioner who has not secured a license in those states that require licensure. Again, this requirement was issued by CMS in 2005 but has not yet been implemented. Practitioners in states without licensure requirements would need to become accredited in order to continue practicing. The accreditation standard would be identical to the standard adopted by the Veterans Administration in 2004.

The legislation goes a step further by requiring that the Medicare payment is matched to the qualification of the provider and the complexity of the patient's needs and the device provided. This provision will protect patients from suppliers with little or no education and training to provide comprehensive O&P services, while rewarding providers who have secured more advanced training and practice on more complex patients.

These common sense reforms will benefit patients, qualified practitioners and taxpayers. I urge my colleagues to join Senators Snowe, Grassley and me in supporting this legislation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business and would also ask unanimous consent that following my remarks, my colleague in this effort to fund transportation projects, Senator Hoeven, follow me.

Mr. President, we all understand that our country faces an array of major economic challenges, and I made the judgment quite some time ago that it was simply impossible to have big league economic wealth with little league transportation systems. All across the country--I know the distinguished Presiding Officer has seen this in Minnesota, where he has been doing good work on infrastructure and bridges--we have seen this in every corner.

When the Senator from North Dakota came to the Senate, I had the good fortune to begin to have discussions with him with respect to some new ways to address the question of how to generate funds for the critical transportation work that needs to be done and to generate those funds in a fashion that would be acceptable to the American people.

I think we all understand that with this kind of an economy and with skyrocketing gasoline prices, it is not very likely that folks will be marching outside our Senate offices anytime soon carrying signs saying: Senator, please raise the gas tax; that is what I hope you will spend your time doing. So we have this challenge given the fact that the traditional system of funding transportation--user fees--of course, in a tough economy, is going to be hard to suggest as a route to generate additional funds.

So for quite some time I have been devoted to the cause of trying to find a way to secure the possibility of getting additional funds through transportation bonds. They, of course, have been used at a variety of levels of government, particularly State and local, over the years.

About 8 years ago, I put forward the first proposal for looking at paying for transportation projects with our former colleague, Senator Jim Talent, a Republican from Missouri, and we called them Build America Bonds. Senator Talent and I thought at that time that this was an opportunity to come up with a fresh and attractive way to pay for transportation projects. We sought to work with the private sector to find some way to use Federal tax credit bonding for these projects, and over the years Senator Talent and I were able to attract a number of Senators on both sides of the aisle for this cause. To give an idea of just how bipartisan this effort has been over the years, Senator Thune, Senator Vitter, our former colleague Senator Dole, Senator Collins, Senator Wicker, and our former colleague Senator Coleman are just a few on the Republican side who were part of the effort. And on the Democratic side, Senator Klobuchar, our former colleague Senator Dayton, Senator Cardin, and Senator Rockefeller have been just a few of those who have supported the bonding efforts.

In 2009 the Congress decided to test a version of Build America Bonds. In effect, as a member of the Senate Finance Committee, I had brought it up so many times with Chairman Baucus and Senator Grassley, who was then the ranking member, I think the two of them said: Well, let's give this a try as part of the Recovery Act. In effect, it would essentially go from the middle of 2009 until the end of 2010.

Late in the evening, as Chairman Baucus and Senator Grassley were working to put together the details on the Recovery Act, I was asked what I thought might be the results of the Build America Bonds program, and I said: Well, it is not going to last all that long. It is going to take the Internal Revenue Service a period of time to put together the rules. And I said: I am just making this up, but why don't we just estimate that it might generate $6 billion to $10 billion worth of transportation and infrastructure investments.

Everybody said: It is an experimental program, sounds promising, go ahead. Let's give it a try.

Well, between April 2009 and the end of the program at the end of 2010, there was more than $181 billion worth of Build America Bonds issued. It was just a little bit more than 18 times what was predicted.

You don't often have this kind of challenge, but, in effect, one of the issues we had to deal with was Build America Bonds became so popular that there was an effort to use them for a variety of other kinds of projects, many of them very laudable but they were not projects that focused specifically on transportation, and, of course, that was the original intent of Build America Bonds. Also, there was no cap on them. Nobody realized they would be so popular.

So there was a concern that this was more than colleagues on both sides of the aisle had bargained for.

We do want to note that the Treasury Department issued their final report on Build America Bonds earlier this year, and they said that Build America Bonds issuers saved well over $20 billion in borrowing costs on a present value basis as compared to tax-exempt bonds.

So clearly there was something to work with in terms of trying to take the next step, and when the Senator from North Dakota arrived here, I said: It would be great to have an opportunity to work with a partner and look specifically at trying to rebuild the concept of focusing specifically on transportation in a way that would generate a substantial amount of new revenue and would be acceptable to colleagues across the political spectrum and those who follow these issues.

As the Senator from North Dakota knows, we have now come up with a new approach called Transportation and Regional Infrastructure Project Bonds. Chairman Baucus and Senator Hatch have been good enough to include them in the finance title of this year's Transportation Funding Program, and we wanted to take a few minutes to talk a little bit about how this would work.

Given the fact that we have been able to attract a number of folks on the progressive side of the political spectrum--folks in labor, for example--Doug Holtz-Eakin has issued a very helpful paper that I hope will also bring conservatives to this cause. We have shared that paper with Senators on both sides of the aisle.

The way the TRIP bonds would work is, first, they are tax credit bonds created specifically for transportation projects. We would allow infrastructure banks that already exist in nearly every State to issue these bonds. This time we are looking to really focus on the States. The States are the primary vehicle for ensuring that these projects would have local support and would really meet the long-term needs the States have identified.

We would pay for the bonds with a sinking fund comprised of State matching contributions and Customs user fees. In the proposal that was accepted by the Finance Committee, we would cap the total amount of bonds issued at $50 billion, giving each State 2 percent of the total. In effect, what the Finance Committee has done is put a placeholder in their bill for us to go forward with this effort.

Each State would get at least $1 billion in bonds to issue on projects at their discretion. States can also band together to bond for larger projects or ones that would have the benefit of addressing a concern of States in a region. This would give the States the incentive and the ability to invest in their own transportation and does so in a way that leverages private investment and costs little to our government in lost revenue.

We would give private investors who show a willingness to help build our roads, bridges, and rail systems a tax credit for their commitment. What Build America Bonds taught us is that there is a real market out there, and what we would like to do is look at a different approach now, focusing on the States, focusing on an approach that would drive these projects, not in Washington, DC but at the local level.

The Joint Committee on Taxation has told us this is an approach that would produce a particularly good deal for American taxpayers.

We can get a transportation bill done. We can put folks back to work. But we are going to have to find a way to come up with more creative approaches to generate additional revenue. If we do not, I think we are going to continue to see, in every corner of the country, critically needed projects simply go unaddressed. We are going to continue to see traffic jams in areas of the country nobody could have even dreamt a traffic jam would be.

I hope Senators, as we go forward with this debate, particularly after the President's Day break, will join my colleagues. Senator Begich has been very supportive of this approach as well. We think this is an approach with a proven track record given what we saw with Build America Bonds. We believe this is a chance to take the lessons we learned from that experience and, by changing the focus so it zeros in more directly, one, on transportation, two, on the States, and looks to some creative features--it is possible, for example, for someone to strip the credit from the underlying bond and to sell the credit--so this provides a lot more flexibility in terms of finding a way to get the private sector into the transportation area.

I hope my colleagues, when we come back, will be supportive of this effort. It has won, as I have indicated, support from across the political spectrum.

I want to thank my partner from the State of North Dakota. I have very much enjoyed working with him both on the Energy Committee and on this issue. As a former Governor, I think he understands particularly well the role of the States in terms of infrastructure.

We will be talking to colleagues between now and the time the Transportation bill comes up, and I thank my friend from North Dakota for his support.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for just 2 additional minutes. I see our friend from Iowa is in the Chamber.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague from North Dakota for his statement. This is bipartisan. It is a bicameral effort. My colleague's point at the end, in terms of our being open to additional ideas and suggestions, is particularly appropriate.

What the challenge is going to be on this transportation issue for years to come is to try to find a way to generate the additional money for the work that needs to be done in a fashion that is acceptable to the American people. If it was so easy, everybody would be just ripping through one idea after another.

The two of us have spent many months trying to take the lessons we have learned from the Build America bonds effort to try to come up with a fresh approach, a fresh bipartisan approach, that would be acceptable to colleagues on both sides of the aisle. We think we have done it. We do not think this is the only way. We are certainly open to ideas and suggestions. But the model of trying to focus on the States, to build on the support we have from folks in business and labor unions, and a whole host of groups at the local level--mayors and county commissioners--strikes us as the way to go.

We are open to additional ideas and suggestions. Our staffs will be working all through this week, the period of the President's Day recess, to refine our proposal, to deal with the various issues related to scoring. But this is a genuinely new approach to generating revenue. It is bipartisan; it is bicameral, with the support of folks in labor and business. We hope colleagues will be supportive, and we are interested in their ideas and suggestions over this period between now and when we start voting on the Transportation bill.

So, again, I thank my friend from North Dakota. It has been great to work with him.

I yield the floor.

I thank the Chair.

(The remarks of Mr. Wyden pertaining to the introduction of S. 2098 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, when we went to college, usually things were different. Often a student took out a loan, but those loans were manageable, and usually there were jobs waiting. Today, too often that is not the case. In fact, the students today who take out loans will leave school weighed down, on average, with $25,000 worth of debt. They are going to be trying to get into a labor market where there are more than four unemployed Americans for every available job.

It has been noted that for the first time student loan debt exceeds credit card debt, and that now totals over $100 billion. Now, clearly, investment in higher education is an economic imperative. Education is the great equalizer. It enables upward economic mobility, and it breaks down class structures that impair many countries' ability to grow their economies. A highly-skilled and educated workforce is the basis for a healthy economy, and it is the linchpin to our economic future.

Mr. President, when we went to college, usually things were different. Often a student took out a loan, but those loans were manageable, and usually there were jobs waiting. Today, too often that is not the case. In fact, the students today who take out loans will leave school weighed down, on average, with $25,000 worth of debt. They are going to be trying to get into a labor market where there are more than four unemployed Americans for every available job.

It has been noted that for the first time student loan debt exceeds credit card debt, and that now totals over $100 billion. Now, clearly, investment in higher education is an economic imperative. Education is the great equalizer. It enables upward economic mobility, and it breaks down class structures that impair many countries' ability to grow their economies. A highly-skilled and educated workforce is the basis for a healthy economy, and it is the linchpin to our economic future.

Mr. President, the long-awaited passage of the long term FAA reauthorization conference report is a great achievement for Chairman Rockefeller, Ranking Member Hutchinson, and the many other Senators and staff members who were involved in this legislation. I'm pleased with the important nationwide achievements in this bill-- NextGen radar systems, improved passengers' rights, and airline ticket transparency, to name a few.

But I wanted to take a few moments to talk about the huge positive impact this legislation is going to have throughout almost every part of my home State of Oregon.

The big news for the Portland region is that the new slot exemptions at Washington National Airport will likely allow for the first direct flight from Portland International Airport to Washington National. This was not an easy victory for the northwest--many of my colleagues from both sides of the aisle had opinions on this issue and it seemed like we were not going to be able to come to an agreement. But I'm proud to say that both sides came to a compromise that will improve air service in the northwest and throughout the country.

One of the things I'm most proud of is that this bill permanently protects Crater Lake from the threat of noisy air tours. As most folks who have visited Crater Lake know, the quiet and peace of the park is just as important as its scenic beauty. This legislation says that Crater Lake is specifically off limits to any overflights that might threaten that tranquility.

This bill creates six new test areas for commercial use of unmanned aerial systems. In Central Oregon, folks are excited about the potential for using those test areas to advance the cutting edge aviation industry that already exists there. It's also an opportunity to monitor wildlife, do meteorological testing, and improve law enforcement in the vast acres of public lands now being co-opted by drug traffickers.

Perhaps the folks who are most directly helped by this legislation are in Independence, OR. Independence has a community of general aviation enthusiasts who live near Independence Airport and who keep their planes on their own property. The FAA recently decided to change the rules on them, putting their future in doubt. This legislation erases that doubt and allows those folks to continue an arrangement they've had for nearly 40 years with no significant safety issues and no significant noise complaints.

Finally, this legislation includes language to encourage recycling at airports, something I have been working

on for nearly a half dozen years. I'm glad that it will provide important tools for airport recycling going forward.

I commend my colleagues for moving this legislation forward as a positive step for the country and for my home State.

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize someone who may not be familiar to members of the Senate, but in my State is synonymous with what makes Oregon a place that values the environment, its natural resources and its scenery.

Gail Achterman of Portland passed away on January 28 of pancreatic cancer. Gail was a special friend for more than 40 years. When I arrived on the Stanford University campus in the summer of 1969, Gail and I were tour guides together, two Democrats at the conservative Hoover Institution of War, Revolution and Peace. We laughed about it then, and kept sharing jokes and stories for more than 40 years.

Gail leaves behind an impressive legacy of public service and dedication to environmental causes that will endure for years to come. Her professional resume is impressive: Lawyer, director of the Institute for Natural Resources at Oregon State University, chair of the Oregon Transportation Commission, natural resources advisor to a former governor and member of too many State councils, boards and commissions to list here.

Even more impressive, however, was her life-long commitment to those things that make Oregon great. For an example, look no further than the indispensable role she played in creation of the Columbia Gorge National Scenic Area in 1981. Anyone who has seen the majestic Columbia River Gorge knows it is one of the most beautiful places on earth--a crown jewel in a landscape filled with natural beauty. I was proud to be part of protecting The Gorge and proud of partnering with Gail in making that happen.

I want to extend my condolences to her husband Chuck and to her family and assure them that Oregon is a greater State thanks to my special friend Gail and the ideals she believed.

Madam President, I commend my colleague from Oregon for his statement.

I would yield.

I thank the Senator from New York for his courtesy. I too will be brief. It is an extraordinary honor to represent Oregon in the Senate. Having this special privilege, I have tried to make the lodestar of my service transparency and accountability. It is why I worked with the distinguished Senator from Missouri Mrs. McCaskill to end secret holds in the Senate.

I have had more than 600 open town meetings. That is why we take legislative drafts and put them online so citizens can comment wherever possible. It is all about transparency and accountability. Today's campaign finance system is neither. It is not transparent, it is not possible for Americans to see who is giving what sums to what particular candidate, and there is no accountability--certainly no accountability in the sense that when people go to the polls in Vermont or New Hampshire or New York or anywhere else people know who has given a donation so that they can factor that in to their political judgment.

With the explosion of mass media, the tradition of negative campaigning through pamphleteers and partisans has grown and grown to the point where the typical voter cannot find a way to avoid the flood of half truths and outright falsehoods. It becomes even harder to send the message that voters want; that is, we made our choice because we have full and complete information.

Now, all of this was getting worse until the Congress came together to take two steps. The first was Congress enacted regulations of independent expenditures and eliminated the so-called soft corporate money that had begun to overwhelm the process.

The second step--and I want to thank Senator Collins from Maine for working with me on this issue--is we passed what is called ``stand by your ad.''

This is the law that requires candidates who sponsor political ads to take individual responsibility for their ads and state in the ads that they ``approve this message.'' I thank Senator Schumer, who has been a champion for this kind of accountability for years.

That is where we were until the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United drove the system right back into the mud. Through this decision, the Supreme Court has seen fit to create what amounts to a new route for massive sums of unreported, unaccountable, and unacceptable spending to drown out any responsible discourse. In my view, this decision degrades our democracy and creates the appearance that the American Government is simply up for sale to the highest corporate bidder.

This decision by the 5-to-4 majority on the Supreme Court overturned almost a century of precedent and undermined the intent of the Founders. The decision, in my view, reflects a lack of understanding about a political process and an inability to see the corrosive effect of massive and hidden expenditures.

Justice Kennedy, in the decision, specifically said this:

We now conclude that independent expenditures, including

those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or

the appearance of corruption.

In effect, it was the opinion of the Court that if Disney or Comcast or British Petroleum spends $20 million in an otherwise $10 million Senate race advocating one candidate, that newly elected Senator will not even have the appearance of working in their corporate interests instead of the public interest. In my view, that kind of reasoning does not pass the smell test. This is the sort of decision that ought to be left to the branch of government with constituents who understand not just the theory but the reality of elections.

It is incumbent upon the Congress, whose members do understand the electoral system, to begin the process of restoring balance to the mechanisms of democracy. This needs to be done before our elections are entirely overrun by shadowy interests warring unchecked, using the political system and American voters as pawns.

My final point is that I do not reach this judgment lightly. I believe constitutional amendments ought to be reserved for those situations when the delicate balance set up by the Founders has been upset by time, circumstance, or, in this case, a sudden and ill- considered change in the jurisprudence that governs our system. That is the situation we face today, and it is why I have decided to add my name to the sponsors of this amendment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I think that is a reasonable request. Senator Moran and I, who have teamed up on Internet policy, wish to speak for a few minutes, if we could follow each other. We plan to be brief. The Senator from Illinois will be brief. Is that acceptable?

Five or 10 minutes each. We will be brief.

Mr. President, Senator Durbin speaks for every Member of the Senate. Senator Kirk is such a decent, caring, and thoughtful man, and all of us enjoy working with him in the Senate on various kinds of bills. Godspeed, Senator Kirk, for a healthy recovery. We are thinking of you tonight and you are in our prayers. I am very glad the senior Senator from Illinois has reflected the concerns of everybody from his home State tonight.

Mr. President, I want to take a few minutes with Senator Moran tonight to reflect on the events of the last few days with respect to the Internet legislation. I want to begin by thanking Majority Leader Harry Reid for reopening the debate on anticounterfeiting and copyright protection legislation. In pulling the Protect IP Act from the floor, Leader Reid has given the Senate an opportunity to get this policy right. The Senate now has the opportunity to consult all of the stakeholders, including the millions of Internet users who were heard last week. The Senate has the opportunity to ensure that those exercising their first amendment rights through the Internet, those offering innovative products and services, and those looking for new mediums for sharing and expression, have their voices heard.

I also express my appreciation to Senator Moran. He is an impassioned advocate for job creation and innovation on the Net--the first on the other side of the aisle to join me in this cause. My colleague, Senator Cantwell from Washington State, who is as knowledgeable as anybody in public service about technology, and Senator Rand Paul, who is a champion of the Internet as a place where those who look at the Net as a marketplace of ideas, stand together and approach policy in an innovative way.

Last week, tens of millions of Americans empowered by the Internet effected political change here in Washington. The Congress was on a trajectory to pass legislation that would change the Internet as we know it. It would reshape the Internet in a way, in my view, that would have been harmful to our economy, our democracy, and our national security interests.

When Americans learned about all this, they said no. The Internet enables people from all walks of life to learn about the legislation and then take collective action to urge their representatives in Washington to stop it.

So everybody asked, come Wednesday, what would happen? In fact, the American people stopped this legislation. Their voices counted more than all the political lobbying, more than all of the advertising, more than all of the phone calls that were made by the heads and the executives of the movie

studios. Their voices were heard loud and clear.

Last week, the Congress did what the American people called for instead of what the Washington insiders wanted. That is what I call real change. It was a grassroots victory for the history books, and, as one commentator said, now we are in unexplored territory. Here is why. Eight million of 162 million who visited Wikipedia took action to influence their Member of Congress; 7 million Americans signed Google's petition to block consideration of PIPA; hundreds of thousands of Americans called the Congress. In all, in just 1 day, more than 15 million Americans communicated with Congress and urged it to reject the Hollywood proposal to censor and censure the Internet.

The 15 million Americans who took action, who signed petitions, who provided their e-mail addresses and ZIP Codes in a desire to be informed are now going to be watching us like never before. The 15 million who looked up and spoke up are not faceless and they are not anonymous. They are people such as Frances Stewart of Maryland, Nancy Linton from Oregon, Debbie Kearns from East Hartford, CT, and John Jewett of Colorado, who gave their names to Web sites around the country. They are joined by millions of other Americans who were raising concerns for months before last week's Web blackout and supporting the filibuster I announced here in the Senate almost 1\1/2\ years ago.

These 15 million citizen activists were not the only ones saying the PROTECT IP Act took the wrong approach. The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times--the hometown newspapers for the content industry--both wrote editorials saying the legislation overreached. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record copies of those articles.

Mr. President, while the 15 million are no doubt pleased, as I am, that Majority Leader Reid pulled PIPA, they are waiting to see if we will now retrench into the old ways of doing things--the old way where Senators went behind closed doors and wrote legislation with the help of well-healed lobbyists, the old way that has eroded the trust America has with the Congress and the confidence that we are here on their behalf--or will the Congress instead construct legislation in a transparent way that responds to our broad collective interests? The American people want just that, and they deserve it. Among the lessons we should have learned from the events of the past few weeks is the importance of letting the public in on what we are doing.

There are serious unintended consequences when Members of Congress and staff think they have all the answers and rush to construct and pass legislation. There are clear virtues in prudence, deliberation, and even a little humility. I believe that is what our constitutional Framers had in mind for the Senate.

I know my colleagues are waiting, and I want to close with this. I harbor no doubt that this Congress on a bipartisan basis can and should construct legislation to combat international commerce in counterfeit merchandise and content that infringes on copyrights. There is no question that selling fake Nikes or movies you don't own is a problem that needs to be addressed, but it can be done in ways that do not threaten speech, that allow for the legitimate sharing of information and protect the architecture and value of the Internet. I look forward to working with my colleagues and a broad cross-section of stakeholders to do that.

I have proposed an alternative with Senator Moran and Senator Cantwell here in the Senate. Chairman Issa and Congresswoman Lofgren have proposed exactly that kind of alternative in the House. It is called the OPEN Act. It is bipartisan. It is bicameral. It would allow us to go after the problem of these rogue foreign Web sites while at the same time protecting what we value so greatly about the Internet.

We are going to have more discussions about this legislation and other approaches in the future, but we now have an opportunity to get this right. To a great extent, that is possible because of my colleague from Kansas who has joined me in this effort, the first on the other side of the aisle to step up and join our efforts. I am very appreciative of what he has done, and I look forward to his comments.

I also thank the Senator from Texas, Mr. Cornyn, for his courtesies so that Senator Moran and I, because of our bipartisan work, could make these brief remarks.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, I understand cloture has been filed on the motion to proceed to the PIPA legislation. As one of the bipartisan group of Senators who strongly objects to proceeding to this bill, I believe it is important to begin to outline the very real dangers that are posed by the bill.

The primary architects of the Internet and our leading cyber security experts have made it clear this legislation will undermine the key technologies that prevent fraud and protect consumers on the Internet.

Our Nation's leading first amendment scholars have made it clear that this bill poses a serious threat to speech and civil liberties for all who use the Internet, and our Nation's leading technology employers warn that this bill presents a clear and present danger to innovation and job growth in an area that is going to be a major source of new jobs for this century.

Today, along with Senator Moran of Kansas and Senator Cantwell of Washington, I have introduced the OPEN Act. We believe this is a reasonable and bipartisan alternative to the PIPA bill and to the legislation that is before the other body, and we hope the Senate will take the time to consider alternatives before taking action that could deal an enormous body blow to a vital job engine for our economy.

Over the past few weeks, more than 1 million Americans have weighed in strongly in opposition to this legislation. Therefore, I will be working with colleagues on both sides of the aisle over the next month to explain the basis for this widespread concern, and I intend to follow through on a commitment that I made more than 1 year ago to filibuster this bill when the Senate returns in January.

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

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