Floor Statements

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn and convene for pro forma sessions only, with no business conducted on the following dates and times, and that following each pro forma session the Senate adjourn until the following pro forma session: Tuesday, December 20, at 11 a.m.; Friday, December 23, at 9:30 a.m.; Tuesday, December 27, at 12 p.m.; Friday, December 30, at 11 a.m.; and that the second session of the 112th Congress convene on Tuesday, January 3, at 12 p.m. for a pro forma session only, with no business conducted, and that following the pro forma session the Senate adjourn and convene for pro forma sessions only, with no business conducted on the following dates and times, and that following each pro forma session the Senate adjourn until the following pro forma session: Friday, January 6, at 11 a.m.; Tuesday, January 10, at 11 a.m.; Friday, January 13, at 12 p.m.; Tuesday, January 17, at 10:15 a.m.; Friday, January 20, at 2 p.m.; and that the Senate adjourn on Friday, January 20, until 2 p.m. on Monday, January 23; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, and

the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; further, that following any leader remarks the Senate be in a period of morning business until 4 p.m., with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each, and that following morning business, the Senate proceed to executive session under the previous order.

The next rollcall vote will be on Monday, January 23, at 5:30 p.m. on confirmation of the Gerrard nomination.

If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand adjourned under the previous order.

Mr. President, over the last 10 months, I have been working with a diverse group of people in my State on ways to get healthier food and more local agricultural products to consumers throughout the country. Our group included folks from every part of the State, from gleaners to cattle ranchers to pear growers. Today, I am introducing legislation based on my discussions with that agricultural advisory group. What we came up with is a series of proposals that I believe will create agricultural jobs, increase access to healthy locally grown fruits and vegetables and reduce paperwork for small farmers while improving access to Federal loans.

This legislation, the Fresh Regional Eating for Schools and Health Act, or FRESH, will provide healthier choices for recipients of Federal programs, push the U.S. Department of Agriculture's, USDA's, technology agenda forward, increase flexibility for State and local stakeholders, and provide better tools for small and beginning farmers.

For too long, the Federal Government has pushed one size fits all solutions when it comes to nutrition and school lunches. That is why this bill allows States to put forward innovative approaches to increase nutrition outcomes for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, SNAP, beneficiaries. Let me make it clear: under this waiver, no benefits will be reduced, and eligibility requirements will not be changed. But States will be allowed to provide incentives for eating healthy for SNAP recipients, and help those folks meet the nutritional guidelines the Federal Government has put out.

Another area where flexibility is needed is in the school lunch program. Right now, over $1 billion goes to Oregon schools to purchase food for school lunches from a USDA commodity warehouse. Meanwhile, I have heard time and time again from school lunch administrators in Oregon that they would prefer to use that money locally to purchase the healthy fruits and vegetables that are so plentiful in our State. This bill would give them the flexibility to use half of what they now get from USDA to buy local agriculture products. This approach not only enables schools to buy healthier food for their students but also helps keep that money in their local economy and support the family farmers down the road.

This bill also moves USDA nutrition programs into the 21st century when it comes to technology. It would push USDA to allow using smartphones and tablet technology to accept SNAP benefits, just as they can accept debit and credit cards today. This will open up access for SNAP beneficiaries to roadside food stands and farmers markets, and encourage innovation within the agency. SNAP recipients would also be allowed to use online grocery stores to purchase foods--a hugely helpful option for busy moms or elderly folks for whom a grocery store is just too hard to get to. For the WIC program, state agencies will be allowed to use technologies like videoconferencing to keep costs low when it comes to training and certification, particularly for stores in rural areas.

Folks will also get a better sense of how the over $70 billion a year taxpayers fund SNAP with is being spent if this bill passes. It requires companies that take in over $1 million a year from the SNAP program to provide the Federal Government with a receipt of just what they have provided.

For small farmers, this bill suspends the 15-year limit for farmers to use FSA-guaranteed operating loans and the 7-year limit for them to use FSA direct operating loans. By suspending these time limits indefinitely, farmers will have more access to these critical capital tools. It includes creation of a streamlined micro-loan program that will allow small farmers who just need a quick loan to repair their truck or buy some feed to borrow up to $5,000 on an expedited basis and with reduced paperwork.

For beginning farmers, this legislation provides an alternative to the requirement that they need three years of farm management experience to get direct loans to buy farm lands. Instead, it allows the completion of college degrees related to business and agriculture to be considered a substitute for hands-on experience. For example, Horticulture or Agricultural Business Management degrees would be acceptable as an alternative. This will give young folks more opportunities to get the capital needed to start a farm.

I am really proud of the efforts the Oregonians on my agricultural advisory committee made in helping provide common sense solutions for nutrition and farming programs. I want to thank them for helping to create these

proposals, and I am going to work hard with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle as we move to the next farm bill to include these ideas.

Mr. President, over the last 10 months, I have been working with a diverse group of people in my State on ways to get healthier food and more local agricultural products to consumers throughout the country. Our group included folks from every part of the State, from gleaners to cattle ranchers to pear growers. Today, I am introducing legislation based on my discussions with that agricultural advisory group. What we came up with is a series of proposals that I believe will create agricultural jobs, increase access to healthy locally grown fruits and vegetables and reduce paperwork for small farmers while improving access to Federal loans.

This legislation, the Fresh Regional Eating for Schools and Health Act, or FRESH, will provide healthier choices for recipients of Federal programs, push the U.S. Department of Agriculture's, USDA's, technology agenda forward, increase flexibility for State and local stakeholders, and provide better tools for small and beginning farmers.

For too long, the Federal Government has pushed one size fits all solutions when it comes to nutrition and school lunches. That is why this bill allows States to put forward innovative approaches to increase nutrition outcomes for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, SNAP, beneficiaries. Let me make it clear: under this waiver, no benefits will be reduced, and eligibility requirements will not be changed. But States will be allowed to provide incentives for eating healthy for SNAP recipients, and help those folks meet the nutritional guidelines the Federal Government has put out.

Another area where flexibility is needed is in the school lunch program. Right now, over $1 billion goes to Oregon schools to purchase food for school lunches from a USDA commodity warehouse. Meanwhile, I have heard time and time again from school lunch administrators in Oregon that they would prefer to use that money locally to purchase the healthy fruits and vegetables that are so plentiful in our State. This bill would give them the flexibility to use half of what they now get from USDA to buy local agriculture products. This approach not only enables schools to buy healthier food for their students but also helps keep that money in their local economy and support the family farmers down the road.

This bill also moves USDA nutrition programs into the 21st century when it comes to technology. It would push USDA to allow using smartphones and tablet technology to accept SNAP benefits, just as they can accept debit and credit cards today. This will open up access for SNAP beneficiaries to roadside food stands and farmers markets, and encourage innovation within the agency. SNAP recipients would also be allowed to use online grocery stores to purchase foods--a hugely helpful option for busy moms or elderly folks for whom a grocery store is just too hard to get to. For the WIC program, state agencies will be allowed to use technologies like videoconferencing to keep costs low when it comes to training and certification, particularly for stores in rural areas.

Folks will also get a better sense of how the over $70 billion a year taxpayers fund SNAP with is being spent if this bill passes. It requires companies that take in over $1 million a year from the SNAP program to provide the Federal Government with a receipt of just what they have provided.

For small farmers, this bill suspends the 15-year limit for farmers to use FSA-guaranteed operating loans and the 7-year limit for them to use FSA direct operating loans. By suspending these time limits indefinitely, farmers will have more access to these critical capital tools. It includes creation of a streamlined micro-loan program that will allow small farmers who just need a quick loan to repair their truck or buy some feed to borrow up to $5,000 on an expedited basis and with reduced paperwork.

For beginning farmers, this legislation provides an alternative to the requirement that they need three years of farm management experience to get direct loans to buy farm lands. Instead, it allows the completion of college degrees related to business and agriculture to be considered a substitute for hands-on experience. For example, Horticulture or Agricultural Business Management degrees would be acceptable as an alternative. This will give young folks more opportunities to get the capital needed to start a farm.

I am really proud of the efforts the Oregonians on my agricultural advisory committee made in helping provide common sense solutions for nutrition and farming programs. I want to thank them for helping to create these

proposals, and I am going to work hard with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle as we move to the next farm bill to include these ideas.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce legislation to expand the Wild Rogue Wilderness Area and expand protections to Oregon's iconic Rogue River and its tributaries. I am pleased that Senator Merkley is joining me in this effort, and that Congressman DeFazio has introduced similar legislation in the House of Representatives.

The Wild Rogue Wilderness and the Rogue River that runs through it embody one of the Nation's premier recreation destinations, famous for the free flowing waters which provide numerous rafting and fishing opportunities. The headwaters of the Rogue River start in one of Oregon's other great gems Crater Lake National Park, and the river ultimately empties into the Pacific Ocean, near Gold Beach on Oregon's southwest coast. Along that stretch, the Rogue River flows through one of the most spectacular canyons and diverse natural areas in the United States. The Rogue River is a world class rafting river, offering everything from one day trips to week long trips through deep forested canyons. On the land, the Rogue River trail is also one of Oregon's most renowned backpacking routes.

The legislation I introduce today, the Rogue Wilderness Area Expansion Act of 2011, would add 60,000 acres of new wilderness to the existing Wild Rogue Wilderness. The Wild Rogue Wilderness expansion would protect habitat for bald eagles, osprey, spotted owls, bear, elk, cougar, wild coho, wild Chinook, wild steelhead and many others. It would also ensure these treasured lands are protected for generations to come.

My legislation would also protect an additional 143 miles of tributaries that feed the Rogue River with cold clean water; 93 miles would be designated Wild and Scenic Rivers and an additional 50 miles would be protected from mining. The areas receiving protection include Galice Creek, Little Windy Creek, Jenny Creek, Long Gulch, and 36 other tributaries of the Rogue. The Rogue River is one of Oregon's most iconic and beloved rivers. It is a river that teems with salmon leaping up rapids to spawn, and finds rafters down those very same rapids at other times of the year. The Rogue River is home to runs of coho, spring and fall Chinook, winter and summer steelhead, and it has the special distinction of being one of only a handful of rivers in the country with runs of green sturgeon. In 2008, American Rivers named the Rogue and its tributaries as the second most endangered river in the U.S. I am hoping to change that today by introducing legislation to protect this river and its tributaries.

I previously introduced legislation to protect the Rogue River tributaries in the last two Congresses. Since that time, I have worked with the timber industry and conservationists to find a compromise that protects one of America's treasures with additional wilderness designations and more targeted protections for the Rogue's tributaries. I am pleased that nearly 60 local businesses, and over 100 organizations and business in total, support protecting the Wild Rogue, and that support grows every day. Many of those businesses directly benefit from the Wild Rogue and the Rogue River. As I often say, protecting these gems is not just good for the environment, but also good for the economy. These protected landscapes are powerhouses of the recreation economy that draws visitors from around the world to this region and the Rogue River is one of Oregon's most important sport and commercial fisheries. The Wild Rogue is the second largest salmon fishery in Oregon behind the Columbia. The Wild Rogue provides the quality of life and recreational opportunities that create an economic engine that attracts businesses and brings in tourists from around the world. The Rogue River supports 450 local jobs in nearby communities like Grants Pass.

By protecting the Wild Rogue landscape and the tributaries that feed the mighty Rogue River, Congress will ensure that future generations can raft, fish, hike and enjoy the Wild Rogue as

it is enjoyed today and that the recreational economy of this region remains strong.

I want to express my thanks to the conservation and business communities of southern Oregon, who have worked diligently to protect these lands and waters and enable the outdoor recreationists to use and enjoy these rivers. I look forward to working with my House colleagues and the bill's supporters to advance our legislation to the President's desk.

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

Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce legislation to expand the Wild Rogue Wilderness Area and expand protections to Oregon's iconic Rogue River and its tributaries. I am pleased that Senator Merkley is joining me in this effort, and that Congressman DeFazio has introduced similar legislation in the House of Representatives.

The Wild Rogue Wilderness and the Rogue River that runs through it embody one of the Nation's premier recreation destinations, famous for the free flowing waters which provide numerous rafting and fishing opportunities. The headwaters of the Rogue River start in one of Oregon's other great gems Crater Lake National Park, and the river ultimately empties into the Pacific Ocean, near Gold Beach on Oregon's southwest coast. Along that stretch, the Rogue River flows through one of the most spectacular canyons and diverse natural areas in the United States. The Rogue River is a world class rafting river, offering everything from one day trips to week long trips through deep forested canyons. On the land, the Rogue River trail is also one of Oregon's most renowned backpacking routes.

The legislation I introduce today, the Rogue Wilderness Area Expansion Act of 2011, would add 60,000 acres of new wilderness to the existing Wild Rogue Wilderness. The Wild Rogue Wilderness expansion would protect habitat for bald eagles, osprey, spotted owls, bear, elk, cougar, wild coho, wild Chinook, wild steelhead and many others. It would also ensure these treasured lands are protected for generations to come.

My legislation would also protect an additional 143 miles of tributaries that feed the Rogue River with cold clean water; 93 miles would be designated Wild and Scenic Rivers and an additional 50 miles would be protected from mining. The areas receiving protection include Galice Creek, Little Windy Creek, Jenny Creek, Long Gulch, and 36 other tributaries of the Rogue. The Rogue River is one of Oregon's most iconic and beloved rivers. It is a river that teems with salmon leaping up rapids to spawn, and finds rafters down those very same rapids at other times of the year. The Rogue River is home to runs of coho, spring and fall Chinook, winter and summer steelhead, and it has the special distinction of being one of only a handful of rivers in the country with runs of green sturgeon. In 2008, American Rivers named the Rogue and its tributaries as the second most endangered river in the U.S. I am hoping to change that today by introducing legislation to protect this river and its tributaries.

I previously introduced legislation to protect the Rogue River tributaries in the last two Congresses. Since that time, I have worked with the timber industry and conservationists to find a compromise that protects one of America's treasures with additional wilderness designations and more targeted protections for the Rogue's tributaries. I am pleased that nearly 60 local businesses, and over 100 organizations and business in total, support protecting the Wild Rogue, and that support grows every day. Many of those businesses directly benefit from the Wild Rogue and the Rogue River. As I often say, protecting these gems is not just good for the environment, but also good for the economy. These protected landscapes are powerhouses of the recreation economy that draws visitors from around the world to this region and the Rogue River is one of Oregon's most important sport and commercial fisheries. The Wild Rogue is the second largest salmon fishery in Oregon behind the Columbia. The Wild Rogue provides the quality of life and recreational opportunities that create an economic engine that attracts businesses and brings in tourists from around the world. The Rogue River supports 450 local jobs in nearby communities like Grants Pass.

By protecting the Wild Rogue landscape and the tributaries that feed the mighty Rogue River, Congress will ensure that future generations can raft, fish, hike and enjoy the Wild Rogue as

it is enjoyed today and that the recreational economy of this region remains strong.

I want to express my thanks to the conservation and business communities of southern Oregon, who have worked diligently to protect these lands and waters and enable the outdoor recreationists to use and enjoy these rivers. I look forward to working with my House colleagues and the bill's supporters to advance our legislation to the President's desk.

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

Mr. President, the Benton County Drug Treatment Court is a shining example of our Nation's drug court system. As one of only 10 mentor courts in the Nation, the Benton County Drug Treatment Court serves as a model program for the over 2,500 treatment courts in the United States. This achievement is especially significant given that the Benton County Drug Treatment Court started as an ambitious pilot program only 10 years ago.

The positive impact drug treatment courts have on individuals, families, and communities throughout our country is remarkable. Due to tireless efforts underway since the first drug court was established over 20 years ago, there is now a system in place which, if completed, reduces the likelihood of drug relapse for individuals, provides increased housing stability, and brings families together. The positive outcomes from completion of drug courts are well documented and benefit those outside the system as well by reducing costs to the taxpayer.

Congratulations to the Benton Country Drug Court on their 10th anniversary. Because of innovative solutions like drug courts, our country is one step closer to breaking the cycle of addiction which has plagued our country for far too long.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for the pending amendment to be set aside, and to call up amendment No. 1160 and amendment No. 1253 en bloc.

Mr. President, this first amendment has previously passed the Senate, and it would solve a problem created by the lawyers at the Pentagon who, in effect, at the last minute on a critical issue for eastern Oregon pulled the rug out from under our communities.

When we have a problem or conflict in our State, we solve it the Oregon way, by finding consensus and building common ground. That is why, when it became apparent 20 years ago that the U.S. Army's chemical depot in Umatilla, OR would be closing once all the chemical weapons were destroyed, the community leaders gathered all of the critical organizations together and began the process of planning what to do with the land once the facility closed.

The depot straddles two counties, several cities, and historic tribal lands. So suffice it to say, there are a lot of folks at home in my State who are interested in what happens to the land.

As progress was made in destroying the weapons at Umatilla, we were able to find consensus. The Federal Government helped. More than $1 million in grants was made available to move the project along. When the facility was listed in the 2005 BRAC recommendations for closure, the Pentagon eventually recognized the organizations that were involved in building this consensus in an official local reuse authority. Everything appeared on track, until last summer. That was, in effect, the time when at the last moment the Pentagon changed the rules.

After decades of planning and $1 million was spent pulling together an extraordinary communitywide consensus, a lawyer at the Pentagon decided to reinterpret the law and declared that the 2005 BRAC report, which became law when Congress didn't pass a resolution of disapproval, didn't matter. He decided that the Umatilla depot would be closed outside of the BRAC authority because the last of the chemical weapons wouldn't be destroyed until after the 6-year limit for completion of BRAC actions.

What this lawyer either didn't know, or chose to ignore, is this was precisely the intention of the BRAC Commission when they put the depot on the closure list. The BRAC report discusses the fact that the mission of destroying the chemical weapons wouldn't be completed until after deadline.

On page 239 of the report, the Commission found Secretary Rumsfeld's assertion that the chemical demilitarization would be complete by the second quarter of 2001 was optimistic. The Commission wrote:

An examination of status information for the depot's

mission completion and subsequent closure revealed that dates

may slip beyond the six-year statutory period for completing

BRAC actions.

Therefore, the Commission took the Secretary of Defense's recommendation: ``Close Umatilla Chemical Depot, OR'' and changed it to: ``On completion of the chemical demilitarization mission, in accordance with treaty operations, close Umatilla Chemical Depot, OR.''

These facts make it clear that the Commission did not, as this Pentagon lawyer claimed, make a conditional recommendation that the facility only be closed if the chemical demilitarization mission is completed by September of 2011. Rather, the Commission acknowledged that the closure will have to happen when the demilitarization mission is complete, even if that is after September 2011. That decision by the Commission became law.

It is also important to note that the Commission was aware that the demilitarization mission had a deadline of its own. Under the terms of the Chemical Weapons Convention treaty, Umatilla had to complete the mission by April 29, 2012. The fact is, they actually beat the deadline.

The depot should be closed under BRAC so that the will of the community in the form of this local reuse authority and the will of Congress and the BRAC law will be taken into account. The Pentagon has to implement the law as it is, not as it wants it to be. But since the lawyers at the Pentagon seem to think there is some ambiguity, I seek to clarify it for them with my amendment. The amendment would require the Pentagon to follow the BRAC commission's report and close the Umatilla depot under BRAC.

Once again, I would like to note that this has already passed the Senate once. I am very appreciative of Chairman Levin, Senator McCain, and all our colleagues who are involved, and I thank them.

Amendment No. 1253

Briefly--and I appreciate the courtesy of Chairman Levin on this matter--I want to discuss my second amendment, which I call the Soft Landing Act. I think we all recognize the extraordinary contributions that are made by our Guard and Reserve. They do tour after tour after tour, and we all understand that never in our Nation's history has the American military relied more on the Guard and Reserve than it has in the last 10 years. More than 800,000 members of the Guard and Reserve have been called to Active Duty since 9/11. As I indicated, they are serving repeated tours in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I strongly believe that, for the period from when a Guard member is holding a rifle to the time when they are holding a child back at home in beautiful Oregon, there is not sufficient time being given in order to have what I call a soft landing--an opportunity to reintegrate and get your life back in order and get back into the community. What we have is a very abrupt period where a soldier faces the trauma of combat and comes right back to the community and really does not get an adequate time to readjust. Literally in a matter of days, these guardsmen go from holding guns in the chaos of a combat zone to holding their children in the serenity of their own homes. It is a difficult transition.

I want to make the point that it is a very different transition than most of our Active-Duty troops have. Many of our Active-Duty troops come back to communities that are close to facilities, close to bases. There is a variety of support services. Many of the guardsmen come back to communities that do not have the support of a large base.

It seems to me that the amount of personal and professional requirements that are placed on these patriotic, courageous Americans who serve in the Guard and Reserve warrants our making it possible for them to have what I call a softer landing getting back into their home communities.

I am very appreciative that Chairman Levin has given me the opportunity to discuss this briefly. He and I and his staff have talked about this before.

I will close by saying that to have all these men and women who have served with great valor in the Guard and Reserve coming home--we all understand they already face an unacceptably high unemployment rate. We know that in many instances they feel strongly about taking the time to get mental health services, to get back together again with their families, and very often the time period simply is insufficient for Guard members who come home. And right now, the reality can be pretty harsh. They go and serve their country. Their families are concerned about them being in harm's way for months on end, and then they come back with no job and no source of income to be able to support their families.

What this legislation does is provide a soft landing for Guard and Reserve members by allowing returning guardsmen and reservists to take up to 45 days--it is not a long period of time--to come back, get home, get their lives in order, and still get paid. My view is that this is part of the promise we have made in this country to take care of our troops. They did their best for us. We ought to do our best for them.

I am hopeful that the soft landing amendment, amendment No. 1253, will be included when this legislation passes here in the Senate.

I again express my appreciation to Chairman Levin. I know he is speaking on an important matter. I thank him for working on both of these amendments, and I look forward to working with him on these matters. He is our authority on these issues. I appreciate his courtesy.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Joel Garrison, a defense legislative fellow in our office, be granted floor privileges for the consideration of these amendments.

Mr. President, never in our Nation's history has the American military relied more on National Guard and Reserve servicemembers than it has in the last 10 years.

More than 800,000 members of the National Guard and Reserves have been called to active duty service since 9/11, many of them serving two, three, and four tours of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan

Our military does an exceptional job of preparing these guardsmen and reservists for combat, but we do far too little to prepare them for transition back to civilian life.

Our guardsmen need a transition from the trauma of combat to the serenity of home in Oregon and throughout our Nation. But instead our guardsmen and reservists are sent back to their community with little or no time to readjust. In a matter of a few days these guardsmen go from holding a gun in the chaos of a combat zone to holding their children in the serenity of their own home. That has to be a difficult transition.

Unlike most active-duty troops who receive a soft landing through a number of carefully monitored reintegration programs and other support services provided on an active-duty base, returning guardsmen lack the support system of a large base.

While active-duty soldiers come home to military bases and the jobs and support systems that they provide, returning Guard members are in many instances left to face the increasingly stark reality of transitioning to civilian life on their own.

The amount of personal and professional requirements placed on guardsmen and reservists pre- and post-deployment are mind boggling. What they need more than anything is time to wind down and tend to their lives.

Even under the best of circumstances, the road back from war is difficult and extremely stressful. Men and women who have served in harm's way experience higher rates of divorce and suicide.

Many battle the debilitating effects and stigma associated with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. In the current struggling economy, nearly half of the guard members and reservists have no job to return to. Some find that the jobs and careers they put on hold to serve their country simply no longer exist.

To compound an unacceptable unemployment problem, Guard members and reservists are immediately taken off the military payroll once they get home.

Imagine that reality for a second. You left your home, your family and your job to serve your country in harm's way for 10 months, only to be welcomed back with no job and no

source of income to pay for your home or support your family.

If they do have a job waiting for them, to keep a steady income, Guardsmen must jump right back into the high stress of relearning their civilian job without a chance to decompress or readjust from the stress of combat.

That is what my bill would help fix.

The National Guard and Reserve Soft Landing Reintegration Act would allow returning guardsmen and reservists to take up to 45 days to decompress, reintegrate, and get their lives in order, while still being paid.

I started this program because I think that citizen-soldiers are one of the strengths of this nation. They and their families should be acknowledged for the level of sacrifices that they are making.

Addressing the post deployment-related needs of returning guardsmen is not only the moral thing to do; it is also strategically wise for our nation.

This is part of the promise our nation made to take care of our troops. They did their best of us. We should do our best for them.

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

Mr. President, today I am being joined by my colleagues Senator Bingaman and Senator Collins on the introduction of the Storage Technology for Renewable and Green Energy Act of 2011 or the STORAGE 2011 Act. The purpose of the bill is to promote the deployment of energy storage technologies to make the electric grid operate more efficiently and help manage intermittent renewable energy generation from wind, solar, and other sources that vary with the time of day and the weather.

Traditionally, peak demand has been met by building more generation and transmission facilities, many of which sit idle much of the time. The Electric Power Research Institute's White Paper on storage technology observed that 25 percent of the equipment and capacity of the U.S. electric distribution system and 10 percent of the generation and transmission system is needed less than 400 hours a year. Peak generation is also often met with the least efficient, most costly power plants. Energy storage systems offer an alternative to simply building more generation and transmission to meet peak demand because they allow the current system to meet peak demands by storing less expensive off-peak power, from the most cost-efficient plants, for use during peak demand.

The growth of renewable energy from wind and solar and other intermittent renewable sources, like wave and tidal energy, raises yet another challenge for the electric grid that storage can help address. These renewable sources deliver power at times of the day or night when they might not be needed or fluctuate with the weather. Energy storage technology allows these intermittent sources to store power as it is generated and allow it to be dispatched when it is most needed and in a predictable, steady of stream of electricity no longer at the vagaries of weather conditions. And equally important, it allows this intermittent generation to more closely match demand. Instead of trying to find a place to sell power at 3:00 am in the morning when demand is down, wind farms for example would be able to sell their power at 3:00 pm in the afternoon when demand is up.

The STORAGE 2011 Act offers investment tax credits for three categories of energy storage facilities that temporarily store energy for delivery or use at a later time. The bill is technology neutral and does not pick storage technology ``winners'' and ``losers'' either in terms of the storage technology that is used or in terms of the source of the energy that is stored. The electricity can come from a wind farm or it can come for a coal or nuclear plant. Pumped hydro, compressed air, batteries, flywheels, and thermal storage are all eligible technologies as are smart-grid enabled plug-in electric vehicles.

First, the STORAGE 2011 Act provides a 20 percent investment tax credit of up to $40 million per project for storage systems connected to the electric grid and distribution system. A total of $1.5 billion in these investment credits are available for these grid connected systems. Developers would have to apply to the Treasury Department and DOE for the credits, similar to the process used for the green energy manufacturing credits the ``48C'' program. This is a 20 percent credit so that means the actual cost of the project that would be eligible for the full credit would be $200 million.

The Act also provides a 30 percent investment tax credit of up to $1 million per project to businesses for on-site storage, such as an ice- storage facility in on office building, where ice is made at night using low-cost, off-peak power and then used to help air-condition the building during the day while reducing peak demand. This is a 30 percent credit so the cost of the actual projects that would get the full credit amount would be around $3.3 million.

The Act also provides for 30 percent tax credit for homeowners for on-site storage projects to store off-peak electricity from solar panels or from the grid for later use during peak hours.

As the EPRI white paper noted ``(d)espite the large anticipated need for energy storage solutions within the electric enterprise, very few grid-integrated storage installations are in actual operation in the United States today.'' The purpose of the STORAGE 2011 Act is help jump start the deployment of these storage solutions so that renewable energy technologies can increase their economic value to the electric grid while reducing their power integration costs as well as to improve the overall efficiency of the electrical system.

I urge my colleagues to take a closer look at what storage technologies can do to help reduce the cost of electricity and improve the performance of the electric grid and renewable energy technologies. If they do, I am confident my colleagues will join Senators Bingaman and Collins in supporting this bipartisan legislation.

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

Mr. President, never in our Nation's history has the American military relied more on National Guard and Reserve servicemembers than it has in the last 10 years.

More than 800,000 members of the National Guard and Reserves have been called to active duty service since 9/11, many of them serving two, three, and four tours of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan

Our military does an exceptional job of preparing these guardsmen and reservists for combat, but we do far too little to prepare them for transition back to civilian life.

Our guardsmen need a transition from the trauma of combat to the serenity of home in Oregon and throughout our Nation. But instead our guardsmen and reservists are sent back to their community with little or no time to readjust. In a matter of a few days these guardsmen go from holding a gun in the chaos of a combat zone to holding their children in the serenity of their own home. That has to be a difficult transition.

Unlike most active-duty troops who receive a soft landing through a number of carefully monitored reintegration programs and other support services provided on an active-duty base, returning guardsmen lack the support system of a large base.

While active-duty soldiers come home to military bases and the jobs and support systems that they provide, returning Guard members are in many instances left to face the increasingly stark reality of transitioning to civilian life on their own.

The amount of personal and professional requirements placed on guardsmen and reservists pre- and post-deployment are mind boggling. What they need more than anything is time to wind down and tend to their lives.

Even under the best of circumstances, the road back from war is difficult and extremely stressful. Men and women who have served in harm's way experience higher rates of divorce and suicide.

Many battle the debilitating effects and stigma associated with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. In the current struggling economy, nearly half of the guard members and reservists have no job to return to. Some find that the jobs and careers they put on hold to serve their country simply no longer exist.

To compound an unacceptable unemployment problem, Guard members and reservists are immediately taken off the military payroll once they get home.

Imagine that reality for a second. You left your home, your family and your job to serve your country in harm's way for 10 months, only to be welcomed back with no job and no

source of income to pay for your home or support your family.

If they do have a job waiting for them, to keep a steady income, Guardsmen must jump right back into the high stress of relearning their civilian job without a chance to decompress or readjust from the stress of combat.

That is what my bill would help fix.

The National Guard and Reserve Soft Landing Reintegration Act would allow returning guardsmen and reservists to take up to 45 days to decompress, reintegrate, and get their lives in order, while still being paid.

I started this program because I think that citizen-soldiers are one of the strengths of this nation. They and their families should be acknowledged for the level of sacrifices that they are making.

Addressing the post deployment-related needs of returning guardsmen is not only the moral thing to do; it is also strategically wise for our nation.

This is part of the promise our nation made to take care of our troops. They did their best of us. We should do our best for them.

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

Mr. President, today I am being joined by my colleagues Senator Bingaman and Senator Collins on the introduction of the Storage Technology for Renewable and Green Energy Act of 2011 or the STORAGE 2011 Act. The purpose of the bill is to promote the deployment of energy storage technologies to make the electric grid operate more efficiently and help manage intermittent renewable energy generation from wind, solar, and other sources that vary with the time of day and the weather.

Traditionally, peak demand has been met by building more generation and transmission facilities, many of which sit idle much of the time. The Electric Power Research Institute's White Paper on storage technology observed that 25 percent of the equipment and capacity of the U.S. electric distribution system and 10 percent of the generation and transmission system is needed less than 400 hours a year. Peak generation is also often met with the least efficient, most costly power plants. Energy storage systems offer an alternative to simply building more generation and transmission to meet peak demand because they allow the current system to meet peak demands by storing less expensive off-peak power, from the most cost-efficient plants, for use during peak demand.

The growth of renewable energy from wind and solar and other intermittent renewable sources, like wave and tidal energy, raises yet another challenge for the electric grid that storage can help address. These renewable sources deliver power at times of the day or night when they might not be needed or fluctuate with the weather. Energy storage technology allows these intermittent sources to store power as it is generated and allow it to be dispatched when it is most needed and in a predictable, steady of stream of electricity no longer at the vagaries of weather conditions. And equally important, it allows this intermittent generation to more closely match demand. Instead of trying to find a place to sell power at 3:00 am in the morning when demand is down, wind farms for example would be able to sell their power at 3:00 pm in the afternoon when demand is up.

The STORAGE 2011 Act offers investment tax credits for three categories of energy storage facilities that temporarily store energy for delivery or use at a later time. The bill is technology neutral and does not pick storage technology ``winners'' and ``losers'' either in terms of the storage technology that is used or in terms of the source of the energy that is stored. The electricity can come from a wind farm or it can come for a coal or nuclear plant. Pumped hydro, compressed air, batteries, flywheels, and thermal storage are all eligible technologies as are smart-grid enabled plug-in electric vehicles.

First, the STORAGE 2011 Act provides a 20 percent investment tax credit of up to $40 million per project for storage systems connected to the electric grid and distribution system. A total of $1.5 billion in these investment credits are available for these grid connected systems. Developers would have to apply to the Treasury Department and DOE for the credits, similar to the process used for the green energy manufacturing credits the ``48C'' program. This is a 20 percent credit so that means the actual cost of the project that would be eligible for the full credit would be $200 million.

The Act also provides a 30 percent investment tax credit of up to $1 million per project to businesses for on-site storage, such as an ice- storage facility in on office building, where ice is made at night using low-cost, off-peak power and then used to help air-condition the building during the day while reducing peak demand. This is a 30 percent credit so the cost of the actual projects that would get the full credit amount would be around $3.3 million.

The Act also provides for 30 percent tax credit for homeowners for on-site storage projects to store off-peak electricity from solar panels or from the grid for later use during peak hours.

As the EPRI white paper noted ``(d)espite the large anticipated need for energy storage solutions within the electric enterprise, very few grid-integrated storage installations are in actual operation in the United States today.'' The purpose of the STORAGE 2011 Act is help jump start the deployment of these storage solutions so that renewable energy technologies can increase their economic value to the electric grid while reducing their power integration costs as well as to improve the overall efficiency of the electrical system.

I urge my colleagues to take a closer look at what storage technologies can do to help reduce the cost of electricity and improve the performance of the electric grid and renewable energy technologies. If they do, I am confident my colleagues will join Senators Bingaman and Collins in supporting this bipartisan legislation.

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

Mr. President, soon the Senate will vote on the Hutchison resolution that, as the Presiding Officer said very eloquently, would overturn the decision of the Federal Communications Commission on what has come to be known as net neutrality. The bottom line for me is straightforward. A vote for the Hutchison resolution will enable a handful of special interests to occupy the Internet. These elites will then have the power to crowd out the voices for change and the ideas of the future. The Internet

would become a glidepath for a relatively small number of people to gain enormously rather than an opportunity for all Americans to prosper.

I think some of the ideas that have been offered up with respect to the Hutchison resolution just defy the facts. For example, we had some discussion about section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. I wrote that section. It was a key development, in my view, in the growth of the Internet because it gave us a chance to deal with smut and some of the junk families have been so upset with without squelching the potential for the net. It enabled content sharers to grow, ever since we struck that thoughtful approach, rather than just go to a censorship regime. I have heard that somehow net neutrality would undo that particular provision. Nothing could be further from the truth. Net neutrality is exactly about what I sought to do in section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which was to make sure that all voices could flourish--not just the voices of a few but all voices could flourish.

If anybody wants to talk a bit more about section 230 in the Communications Decency Act, I am happy to have that discussion, but as the author of that provision, it is something I and a lot of other people who have worked in this field have felt was essential to the growth of the Internet, and we share that view just as we believe that, as the Presiding Officer does, net neutrality is critical to the growth of the Internet in the years ahead because the fundamental principles that underlie both section 230 and net neutrality are the same.

The debate about the Federal Communication Commission's decision goes right to the heart of what the Internet is all about. It has always been a platform where all the actors are equal, where everybody has that opportunity, as the Presiding Officer suggested, at the American dream. It is a place where, whether it is one dissenting voice screaming out for democratic change or one brilliant idea that forever changes the way that people and society organize, everyone has that opportunity.

I chair the Senate Finance Subcommittee on International Trade. I think just one example of what we have seen is the Internet is going to be the shipping lane of the 21st century. This is the way societies are going to organize. This is the way people are going to come together. This is the way business is going to be conducted. Basically, net neutrality protects everybody's access to that shipping lane. It is not just going to be a place for the old-world business model. You bet the old-world business models are threatened by net neutrality. I understand that. I understand they are threatened by it. They have always been able to count on big, powerful, and well-connected interests and organizations to help them to dominate industry, and the Internet overturned that kind of thinking because it is the equalizer, it is the democratizer.

It just seems to me that when we open our morning newspaper day after day and see that the hope of the country is in innovation, in startups, in new ideas--it is not just in Silicon Valley, it is all over the country and all over the world--the last thing we want to do here in our country is adopt rules that would retard that development. And my view is that the power of the Internet--the network--is best utilized when content can move freely through it, and that is whether it is free from taxes, from liability, and certainly free from the kind of discrimination that would be allowed if the net neutrality rules were overturned.

Again, I touched on section 230 of the Communications Decency Act and why that was so important to the growth of the net and why I think net neutrality is consistent with that. It is the same with respect to some other legislation in which I have been heavily involved.

I had the privilege of being one of the coauthors of the Internet Tax Freedom bill. What that was all about was trying to protect the Internet from discrimination--not all taxes altogether but discrimination. That, too, is a fundamental principle of the net neutrality rules, is trying to make sure the net is not going to be singled out by a handful of special interests who could, in effect, devise what amounts to their own lanes on the Internet and force everybody else to pay for it.

So despite what may even be the interests of some of these powerful interest groups--and I know they are all saying now that they have no intent to discriminate against content over their networks. History shows that they cave every time when shareholders come and say: Look, you have to take this step to generate a profit. I think the Internet is too important to leave those kinds of decisions vulnerable to what is inevitably going to be the cry from shareholders and others to maximize profits.

One last point, if I might. I see other colleagues waiting to speak. I think the Internet and the economy in this country that is driven by the Internet represent perhaps our greatest comparative advantage. I touched on the Internet being the shipping lane of the 21st century. You know, what I want us to do is enhance the American way, enhance American values, and use the Internet to promote those values, facilitate speech, and expand the marketplace.

The reality is that the American brand is something very special, very special all over the world. The fact is, we have small businesses, and we heard from them in hearings. I know the distinguished chairman of the Commerce Committee is here, Senator Rockefeller, and others. Hardly a day goes by that I don't wish I was back being a member of the Senate Commerce Committee because it is such an important committee, it does such important work. We saw in some of those first hearings on the Internet--we started looking at taxes and regulation and liability and the Communications Decency Act--we saw how small businesses that really could operate only in a relatively small area for years and years suddenly, after they paid their Internet access charges, could go wherever they want, when they want, how they want, and they were equal to the most powerful groups and voices in the country. That is their opportunity. That is their chance to get their brand all over the world.

We ought to make sure we take no action that is going to make it harder for small entrepreneurs to exchange their goods and services far beyond their communities. We ought to be making judgments that allow them to get into every nook and cranny of the world with the American brand.

I hope my colleagues will reject this resolution. I believe the Internet has thrived precisely because of the principles of net neutrality. It has contributed to the American economy and to job creation because consumers ultimately get to see and get what they want as quickly as they want it.

It is going to be an important vote. I heard the Presiding Officer say that this was something of an issue for geeks, and from time to time, people have said I am one of those. But I will tell the Presiding Officer, I think ultimately the net is not about geeks, it is about democracy. This is the great democratizer. This is the trampoline that provides opportunities to people without power and clout.

I want to say to colleagues, particularly those who have mentioned section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, as the author of that particular provision--and Senator Rockefeller remembers this huge outcry about smut. We were all concerned about smut at that time. And we said: There is a choice. We can either do, with respect to this debate, what makes sense for the future, and that is empower families and parents to get these filters so the Internet can grow and we can fight smut in a practical way, or we can do a lot of damage and come up with some sort of censorship regime.

As colleagues remember, essentially both approaches were included in the bill, and the approach that mandated censorship was struck down. Freedom won. The principles of net neutrality won in that first big battle fighting smut 15 years ago. If we were to undo the decisions of the Federal Communications Commission and move back to the days when you could talk about discriminating, you know, against the Internet, I think it would be a step against all the progress we have made in the last 15 years with respect to oversight and regulation and taxes.

This is an important vote, colleagues. When you read the morning newspaper and you see that it is the

entrepreneurs and the startups and the innovators who are providing the path forward in a very difficult economy, I think you will see that the policies we have laid out for the last 15 years, whether it is the Communications Decency Act, whether it is other legislation--Chairman Rockefeller remembers when we wrote the digital signatures law in the Commerce Committee--these votes, these laws have all become law because they essentially were built on the very same principles of net neutrality, and that is freedom for all and a democratic Internet to provide opportunity to all Americans and not just the elites, not just a handful of special interests.

I commend Chairman Rockefeller and Senator Franken for their good work.

I often agree with Senator Hutchison. This is not one of those opportunities.

I hope my colleagues, when we have this vote on the extraordinarily important resolution involving net neutrality, will vote against the Hutchison resolution.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of myself, Senator Carper and Senator Casey to introduce the Startup Technical Assistance for Reemployment Training and Unemployment Prevention Act of 2011, or the STARTUP Act. This bill would allow unemployed Americans to use the unemployment insurance, UI, system to create jobs for themselves and for others.

In too many cases, the current unemployment assistance programs allow the experience and expertise of America's unemployed workers to sit on the sidelines. The STARTUP Act promotes an alternative approach that gives the unemployed the ability to start their own businesses and get in the game, self-employment assistance, SEA.

In Oregon, we have got this program up and running and think other states should be encouraged to do the same. By failing to take advantage of self-employment assistance, we are missing an opportunity to not only help currently unemployed workers but also to help our economy grow and create more jobs. I know this program works, its record in Oregon is strong and can be found in letters and testimony from individuals who have used the program.

Take, for example, software developers Adam Lowry and Michael Richardson who joined the ranks of the unemployed when the tech startup they worked at went under in 2009. With little capital, they turned to Oregon's self-employment assistance program which allowed them to draw unemployment benefits while they and two friends launched the mobile software development company Urban Airship, which is now one of the best-known technology startups to emerge in Oregon in recent years. Just yesterday, Urban Airship announced $15.1 million in strategic investment from Salesforce.com and Verizon, among others. Last week an additional acquisition brought the company's total payroll to 51 employees and an additional 22 open positions. At the root of Urban Airship's success are four entrepreneurial-minded individuals and a jump start from self-employment assistance.

Expanding self-employment assistance is a creative way to use the current unemployment insurance structure to create new businesses and additional jobs beyond that of the immediate beneficiary. We often talk about the benefits of small businesses in this country, yet our unemployment insurance programs actually prevent aspiring entrepreneurs from putting their ideas to work. Under the unemployment insurance systems in most states, if you stop looking for a job or you turn down a job, you lose your unemployment benefit even if you are working to start your own business. States with active self-employment assistance programs, like Oregon, allow a small percent of the unemployed to focus full time on starting their own business while drawing down their unemployment benefits in the form of self-employment assistance. Anyone who has started a new business knows that getting it off the ground is a full time job in and of itself, and allowing would-be UI recipients to focus full-time on their new business vastly increases their likelihood of success. Rather than rely on others to create jobs for them, self-employment assistance allows determined entrepreneurs to create jobs for themselves and others.

The President's proposal in the American Jobs Act is a step in the right direction; it allows states to quickly enter into an agreement with the Department of Labor and allow the long-term unemployed, those on extended unemployment compensation, to draw down their UI benefits in the form of self-employment assistance. However, this does little to encourage states to make self-employment assistance a part of their permanent strategy. We must be more far-sighted. We ought to provide states with a little assistance so that they can start self-employment programs of their own, not just for periods of extended unemployment compensation.

I want to be clear: this is no giveaway. In order to get this benefit, unemployed workers have to meet the same wage and hour requirements as they would to receive UI and they must prove they have a viable business plan. The beneficiaries of self-employment assistance really have something to offer, they have solid work experience and solid ideas; and put into action, that combination can snowball into a successful business with multiple employees.

There are 2.5 million micro businesses in the U.S., representing 88 percent of all businesses. They generate $2.4 trillion in receipts, account for 17 percent of GDP, and employ more than 13 million people. If one out of every three of these businesses hired just one additional employee, the U.S. economy would achieve full employment. Expanding self-employment assistance helps us get there.

A study by the Department of Labor found that self-employment participants were 19 times more likely than eligible non-participants to be self-employed at some point after being unemployed. Moreover, they were four times more likely to obtain employment of any kind. The average cost to create each of those jobs is $3,350. According to estimates from Princeton economist and former Federal Reserve Board Vice Chairman Alan Blinder, it takes about $93,000 worth of garden- variety fiscal stimulus to create an average job. It is not hard to see that job creation through SEA is an incredible bargain.

This program has been creating jobs and businesses in Oregon for nearly two decades. Earlier this year, Pat Sanderlin, who coordinates Oregon's program, conducted an informal ``census'' of enrollees since 2004. He found that 77 percent of businesses started by SEA beneficiaries are still up and running. According to Mr. Sanderlin, the companies' combined annual payroll totals $7,888,210.

Despite widespread support for self-employment and entrepreneurial programs, only a handful of states offer SEA, and those that do take advantage of it typically administer benefits to a small share of the unemployed. Only about 2,400 Oregonians have used the program since its inception in 1995. Though states currently have the option of taking advantage of self-employment assistance, the administrative costs to start a new program often prevent them from doing so. Because Federal law prevents self-employment benefits from being paid out while an individual is in a period of extended unemployment, the long-term unemployed cannot take advantage of the program.

The STARTUP Act encourages states to utilize self-employment assistance by: allowing the long-term unemployed who remain eligible for regular or extended unemployment benefits to draw down those benefits in the form of self-employment assistance; providing technical assistance and model language from the Department of Labor for states that create new self-employment programs; and providing financial assistance to aid states in establishing, implementing, improving and/ or administering self-employment programs.

Self-employment benefits can serve as a guaranteed source of startup capital for businesses. And unlike traditional unemployment insurance, workers who successfully exit this program by starting their own business can create more new jobs as business expands. When unemployment is high and workers face extended periods of joblessness, this is exactly the type of program we should embrace.

I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation to expand self- employment assistance programs so that more unemployed workers have an opportunity to create jobs for themselves and for others.