Floor Statements

Mr. President, biomass energy development is not only a great economic opportunity for Oregon, it is an essential piece of the forest health puzzle. Biomass energy helps create a market and a way to pay for forest thinning and hazardous fuels programs. It is also a way for keeping local timber and wood products mills in business at a time when the industry, like many

in the U.S. is going through hard times. Biomass also provides an important renewable energy option for the Nation as a substitute for coal and other fossil fuels. Every region of the country has biomass energy opportunities even if the exact nature of the biomass that would be used varies from region to region. Today, I am joining my colleague from Maine, Senator Collins, and a bipartisan group of Senators, in introducing legislation to make sure that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency can, and will, issue regulations under the Clean Air Act and the Solid Waste Disposal Act that ensure that the owners of these mills and biomass energy plants can continue to invest in them and maintain and create the jobs that are so badly needed.

Pending Environmental Protection Agency regulations governing boilers and incinerators will make it very difficult for biomass energy to be used in the U.S. To its credit, EPA recognizes this fact and has repeatedly proposed to rewrite those regulations to address the concerns of biomass energy users, the forest products industry, and other industries. The legislation being introduced today is aimed at making sure that EPA can collect the necessary data and reissue its regulations in an orderly process that preserves biomass energy as a national energy option and allows economically hard pressed timber and forest products mills to remain in operation.

On December 7, 2010, EPA, which was under court order to issue new Clean Air Act regulations for boilers and incinerators, filed a request with the Federal Court overseeing the boiler emissions rules asking for a delay in the court-ordered deadline for issuing the rules by 15 months so that EPA could reevaluate its own proposed rules and address the problems raised by the forest products industry and others. However, the Federal judge hearing the case rejected EPA's request and gave EPA just a month to fix the rule. In February 2011, EPA met that deadline, but continuing to recognize the flaws in its regulations, it immediately triggered an administrative process known as reconsideration to allow affected industries to provide more information and for the agency to revise its regulations. In May, EPA agreed with industry comments that the rule needed to be reviewed and it agreed to stay, or delay, the implementation of the existing Clean Air Act rules for boilers and incinerators. Unfortunately, EPA did not issue a stay of a related rule which defines which materials can be burned in those boilers and which need to be burned in incinerators. EPA has now proposed a schedule, which it confirmed in letters to me and several other Senators, to consider additional comments by industry and others and develop new Clean Air Act rules.

Unfortunately, this is not the end of the story. Stays can be lifted by the courts. This legislation would statutorily affirm the EPA's stay of the Clean Air Act rules. And it would affirm EPA's proposal to issue new regulations by a date certain. That date would be 15 months from the date of enactment, the same period of time EPA claimed was necessary to draft a new rule. The goal here, which I believe EPA shares, is to issue Clean Air Act regulations that make sense, not to do away with Clean Air Act regulations for boilers and incinerators.

On the other hand, by not agreeing to make changes to the ``what's a fuel and what's not'' rule, EPA has made it very likely that many widely used boiler fuels can no longer be used, like wood scrap from door and window mills. And some results of the rule make little practical sense. For example, scrap tires that are picked up at a tire shop can continue to be burned as a fuel. Scrap tires that are picked up at a landfill cannot. EPA has indicated that it will try to develop regulatory guidance to help industry navigate the regulatory confusion it has created.

I appreciate the fact that EPA recognizes that there is a problem with the fuel-or-waste rule and that they are offering to try to fix it by issuing regulatory guidance. However, I am not convinced that EPA can fix the problems with the rule by just by issuing guidance. This legislation will direct EPA to establish new rules on what materials can be burned as boiler fuel, and which cannot, and give EPA clear statutory direction on what can be included. This direction limits allowable fuels to a specific list so that there are no surprises or backdoor exceptions. EPA can add to the list only after notice and comment so the public knows what, if any, additions are being made.

This process for defining which fuels can be burned in a boiler and which cannot is very important to me. While it makes sense to continue to allow many materials that the wood products industry and others have used as boiler fuels for generations, I do not think that it's appropriate to simply decide that any fuel that was used in a boiler in the past should be grandfathered in. The provisions in this bill defining what materials can be burned in a boiler ensure that will not be the case. This was a major issue in litigation surrounding earlier versions of these rules and I do not think it is wise to ignore this fact. Congress has the opportunity to try to address the legitimate concerns about what is being burned in these boilers and it should.

Finally, the bill would extend the normal 3 year period for boilers to come into compliance to 5 years. It is my hope that once there a final regulations and industry knows what it has to do that it will not take that long. However, there some 2000 boilers in the U.S. that would all have to upgrade or replace their units all at the same time and coincident with similar rules going into effect for electric utility company boilers. This extra time will mean that there will be no excuse for not meeting the final standards.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that letters of support be printed in the Record.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending business to call up my amendment, amendment No. 570, as modified.

Madam President, I ask for the immediate consideration of amendment No. 570, as modified.

Madam President, when we have a conflict or a problem in my home State, we resolve 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 the stakeholders and began the process of planning what to do with the land once the facility closed. The Umatilla Depot straddles two counties, several cities, and historic tribal lands, so there are a lot of folks in my home State who are interested in what happens to the land.

As progress was made in destroying the weapons at Umatilla, the community built common ground and found a genuine consensus. The Federal Government would support it. It gave more than $1 million in assistance. When the facility was listed in the 2005 BRAC recommendations for closure, the Pentagon eventually recognized the group of stakeholders as an official Local Reuse Authority.

Everything appeared on track until last month. That was when, at the eleventh hour, the Pentagon changed the rules. After decades of planning and $1 million in preparation, 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. That lawyer 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 somehow missed is that this was precisely the intention of the BRAC Commission when they put the Umatilla 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 the deadline. On page 239 of the report, the Commission found that Secretary Rumsfeld's assertion that the chemical demilitarization mission at Umatilla would be complete by the second quarter of this year 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 6-year statutory period for completion of

the 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 obligations, close Umatilla Chemical Depot, OR.''

These facts make it clear the Commission did not--as the Pentagon has claimed recently--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 completed even if that is after September of 2011. That decision by the Commission became law.

It is also important to note that the Commission is aware that the demilitarization mission had a deadline of its own. Under the terms of the Chemical Weapons Convention Treaty, Umatilla must complete the mission by April 29, 2012.

UMCD will meet this deadline, if not beat it. The Commission was not giving authority for the mission at UMCD to be one of a never-ending nature. They were simply giving UMCD the additional 8 months provided under the Chemical Weapons Convention.

The depot should be closed under BRAC so the will of the community, in the form of the local reuse authority, and the will of Congress in the BRAC law will be taken into account.

I strongly believe the local community should decide what to do with the land and not somebody who is off in the basement of the Pentagon.

I have spoken with Secretary Panetta about this matter, and he is fully supportive of our efforts.

I wish to also thank Senator Johnson and my good friend from Arizona, Senator McCain, who have also been very helpful--and their staff--in working with us. The Pentagon has to implement the law as it is, not, in my view, as it wants. But since the lawyers at the Pentagon have in recent weeks thought there was some ambiguity, I wished to clarify it for them with the amendment that has been modified with the good counsel of the staff of Senator McCain.

Let me also say, the staff of Senator McCain has been very helpful in saying this would be permissive authority in terms of the Pentagon and that the Senator could join me in a letter making it clear it is important this be moved expeditiously. I hope we can complete this matter at this time.

My amendment, which I offer on behalf of myself and my colleague, Senator Merkley, would allow the Pentagon to follow the BRAC commission's report and close the Umatilla Depot under BRAC.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I am joining with my colleagues from Idaho, Senator Crapo and Senator Risch, and my colleague from Alaska, Senator Begich, to correct a regulatory problem that left uncorrected will bury private, State and tribal forest lands in a wave of litigation. If we have learned anything from the court battles that have contributed to the widespread gridlock and mismanagement of our Federal forests, it is that this is not the best path to ensure our forests' future and should be considered only as a last resort. Now those battles threaten to spill over onto private forest lands.

Since the advent of the Clean Water Act, Democratic and Republican administrations have held that most silviculture activities were nonpoint sources for purposes of the act and would be best regulated at the State level, under the States' individual forest practices laws. Under this rule, known as the ``silviculture rule, `` silvicultural activities, such as nursery operations, site preparation, reforestation and subsequent treatment, thinning, prescribed burning, pest and fire control, harvesting operations, surface drainage, or road construction and maintenance, from which there is natural runoff, were regulated through the Clean Water Act by States best management practices.

This rule for forest roads has now been explicitly invalidated by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which--in a series of two decisions-- implicitly undermined the long-held ``silvicultural rule,'' stemming from

litigation over the use of forest roads in Oregon State-owned forests.

According to the Ninth Circuit, stormwater runoff collected and directed by a system of ditches and culverts creates a discrete point source and therefore, must be regulated as industrial stormwater runoff. This judicial interpretation of the Clean Water Act means that every source of runoff on forest roads will now require an industrial stormwater runoff permit. Not only will new roads need to be permitted, but the hundreds of thousands of miles of existing roads in Oregon and around the country, on both public and private lands, will now need to be reviewed and issued permits.

If this one court's decision to overturn 35 years of widely-accepted, Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, policy is allowed to stand, private, State, and tribal forest owners will also likely be subjected to litigation as part of the permitting process or through lawsuits under the citizen suit provisions of the Clean Water Act. The outcome could well deny States the use of their forests which they depend on to pay for schools and services, while significantly depressing the investment required to sustain private forestry.

If this decision is allowed to stand, every use of forest roads will require permitting and will therefore be subject to challenge by citizen lawsuits. This will not only overburden landowners and managers in the Ninth Circuit states by adding significant compliance and permitting costs, it will create an opportunity for administrative appeal and litigation every time a permit is approved.

Initially, the court's ruling will apply solely to my region of the country, but we can expect lawyers to quickly beat a path to other Federal courts and the EPA itself, seeking to extend the ruling to all other forested regions of the country, and giving an immediate and perhaps permanent competitive advantage to our foreign competitors who have far lesser environmental standards and enforcement.

The fact of the matter is that forests and forest roads--even private ones--have multiple economic and environmental uses and users--from wildlife habitat to recreation to timber production--over decades long growing and harvesting cycles. The ``silviculture rule'' existed because forestry is different from other industries, even other agricultural production. This is why, in this instance, I believe the courts have gone too far in reinterpreting the law and why legislation is needed to make the long-accepted ``silvicultural rule'' the legal basis for Clean Water Act regulation of forestry practices.

The Clean Water Act is one of the cornerstones of environmental protection. In the past two Congresses, I cosponsored the Clean Water Restoration Act because I believed that the U.S. Supreme Court went too far in reinterpreting decades of Clean Water Act law by excluding wetlands and intermittent streams that had long been protected under that law. Here too, I believe that the courts have gone too far in reinterpreting what has been a longstanding understanding of how silvicultural activities should be regulated. The Ninth Circuit concluded that only Congress can authorize EPA's original reading of the law. Senators Crapo, Risch, Begich and I are introducing legislation today in response to that conclusion.

That is not to say that the persons who orchestrated this litigation were not well-intentioned in their desire to address the water quality issues that can arise from silviculture, as they can in virtually every other agricultural activity. Rather, I believe they had the best of intentions. In fact, I share their intentions. I have labored for decades and will continue to work to address the poor condition of forest roads on Federal lands. I will also be the first to argue that the Federal Government has much to do in that regard. Efforts can also be made on State and private lands. In many instances, what is needed is simply more technical assistance and financial incentives to help landowners and managers that are seeking to do the right thing. I certainly care about keeping the pristine quality of our streams and the impacts that sediment can have on salmon and aquatic creatures. It is part of the reason why I have championed wilderness and wild and scenic river legislation to protect Oregon's special places, including its beautiful waterways.

But I can't agree with their decision to first fight this out in court. Their litigation tries to impose an outcome on my region without ever attempting to address the concerns and needs of the thousands of people in my State who earn their living as responsible stewards of private forest land. Oregon is still struggling to come back from the economic crisis and many of our forested counties continue to suffer from double digit unemployment. Where will the 120,000 people in Oregon who make their living on private forest land go when private lands experience the same gridlock as their Federal land counterparts? How will small woodlot owners in Oregon--mostly mom and pop investments-- survive when subjected to Federal regulation and lawsuits for the first time in our State's history? How many millions of acres of private, shareholder-owned forest land will be converted to nonagricultural purposes when companies are no longer able to carry out needed forest management? To my knowledge, the litigants did not make a meaningful effort to address any of those challenges before initiating the lawsuit that now threatens to throw my State into a dangerous economic trajectory.

I should point out that this issue transcends partisan concerns, as evidenced by the prominent Democrats who have found common ground with Republicans on this issue. Oregon's Governor, John Kitzhaber, one of the most prominent environmental champions in the Nation, has consistently fought against the Northwest Environmental Defense Center ruling and continues to do so. Senator Begich, who is known for his thoughtful and balanced approach to natural resource issues, joins me as an original cosponsor. On the House side, I am joined by Democratic Congressman Kurt Schrader, who knows better than most the unintended consequences of well-intentioned, but poorly aimed efforts at regulation.

To my friends in the environmental community who raise legitimate concerns about a range of issues surrounding this policy I encourage you to sit down with us in a dialogue, at both the Federal and State levels. Bring your ideas for how we can monitor and protect water without sacrificing what remains of Oregon's forest industry. You will be heard and I stand ready to work with you. But it is not enough to simply dictate outcomes. We have to first look for solutions that avoid the epidemic of litigation and appeals that threaten the sustainability and survival of our timber industry. You are, of course, right to expect that we arrive at those solutions within a reasonable period of time.

Mr. President, today I am joining with my colleagues from Idaho, Senator Crapo and Senator Risch, and my colleague from Alaska, Senator Begich, to correct a regulatory problem that left uncorrected will bury private, State and tribal forest lands in a wave of litigation. If we have learned anything from the court battles that have contributed to the widespread gridlock and mismanagement of our Federal forests, it is that this is not the best path to ensure our forests' future and should be considered only as a last resort. Now those battles threaten to spill over onto private forest lands.

Since the advent of the Clean Water Act, Democratic and Republican administrations have held that most silviculture activities were nonpoint sources for purposes of the act and would be best regulated at the State level, under the States' individual forest practices laws. Under this rule, known as the ``silviculture rule, `` silvicultural activities, such as nursery operations, site preparation, reforestation and subsequent treatment, thinning, prescribed burning, pest and fire control, harvesting operations, surface drainage, or road construction and maintenance, from which there is natural runoff, were regulated through the Clean Water Act by States best management practices.

This rule for forest roads has now been explicitly invalidated by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which--in a series of two decisions-- implicitly undermined the long-held ``silvicultural rule,'' stemming from

litigation over the use of forest roads in Oregon State-owned forests.

According to the Ninth Circuit, stormwater runoff collected and directed by a system of ditches and culverts creates a discrete point source and therefore, must be regulated as industrial stormwater runoff. This judicial interpretation of the Clean Water Act means that every source of runoff on forest roads will now require an industrial stormwater runoff permit. Not only will new roads need to be permitted, but the hundreds of thousands of miles of existing roads in Oregon and around the country, on both public and private lands, will now need to be reviewed and issued permits.

If this one court's decision to overturn 35 years of widely-accepted, Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, policy is allowed to stand, private, State, and tribal forest owners will also likely be subjected to litigation as part of the permitting process or through lawsuits under the citizen suit provisions of the Clean Water Act. The outcome could well deny States the use of their forests which they depend on to pay for schools and services, while significantly depressing the investment required to sustain private forestry.

If this decision is allowed to stand, every use of forest roads will require permitting and will therefore be subject to challenge by citizen lawsuits. This will not only overburden landowners and managers in the Ninth Circuit states by adding significant compliance and permitting costs, it will create an opportunity for administrative appeal and litigation every time a permit is approved.

Initially, the court's ruling will apply solely to my region of the country, but we can expect lawyers to quickly beat a path to other Federal courts and the EPA itself, seeking to extend the ruling to all other forested regions of the country, and giving an immediate and perhaps permanent competitive advantage to our foreign competitors who have far lesser environmental standards and enforcement.

The fact of the matter is that forests and forest roads--even private ones--have multiple economic and environmental uses and users--from wildlife habitat to recreation to timber production--over decades long growing and harvesting cycles. The ``silviculture rule'' existed because forestry is different from other industries, even other agricultural production. This is why, in this instance, I believe the courts have gone too far in reinterpreting the law and why legislation is needed to make the long-accepted ``silvicultural rule'' the legal basis for Clean Water Act regulation of forestry practices.

The Clean Water Act is one of the cornerstones of environmental protection. In the past two Congresses, I cosponsored the Clean Water Restoration Act because I believed that the U.S. Supreme Court went too far in reinterpreting decades of Clean Water Act law by excluding wetlands and intermittent streams that had long been protected under that law. Here too, I believe that the courts have gone too far in reinterpreting what has been a longstanding understanding of how silvicultural activities should be regulated. The Ninth Circuit concluded that only Congress can authorize EPA's original reading of the law. Senators Crapo, Risch, Begich and I are introducing legislation today in response to that conclusion.

That is not to say that the persons who orchestrated this litigation were not well-intentioned in their desire to address the water quality issues that can arise from silviculture, as they can in virtually every other agricultural activity. Rather, I believe they had the best of intentions. In fact, I share their intentions. I have labored for decades and will continue to work to address the poor condition of forest roads on Federal lands. I will also be the first to argue that the Federal Government has much to do in that regard. Efforts can also be made on State and private lands. In many instances, what is needed is simply more technical assistance and financial incentives to help landowners and managers that are seeking to do the right thing. I certainly care about keeping the pristine quality of our streams and the impacts that sediment can have on salmon and aquatic creatures. It is part of the reason why I have championed wilderness and wild and scenic river legislation to protect Oregon's special places, including its beautiful waterways.

But I can't agree with their decision to first fight this out in court. Their litigation tries to impose an outcome on my region without ever attempting to address the concerns and needs of the thousands of people in my State who earn their living as responsible stewards of private forest land. Oregon is still struggling to come back from the economic crisis and many of our forested counties continue to suffer from double digit unemployment. Where will the 120,000 people in Oregon who make their living on private forest land go when private lands experience the same gridlock as their Federal land counterparts? How will small woodlot owners in Oregon--mostly mom and pop investments-- survive when subjected to Federal regulation and lawsuits for the first time in our State's history? How many millions of acres of private, shareholder-owned forest land will be converted to nonagricultural purposes when companies are no longer able to carry out needed forest management? To my knowledge, the litigants did not make a meaningful effort to address any of those challenges before initiating the lawsuit that now threatens to throw my State into a dangerous economic trajectory.

I should point out that this issue transcends partisan concerns, as evidenced by the prominent Democrats who have found common ground with Republicans on this issue. Oregon's Governor, John Kitzhaber, one of the most prominent environmental champions in the Nation, has consistently fought against the Northwest Environmental Defense Center ruling and continues to do so. Senator Begich, who is known for his thoughtful and balanced approach to natural resource issues, joins me as an original cosponsor. On the House side, I am joined by Democratic Congressman Kurt Schrader, who knows better than most the unintended consequences of well-intentioned, but poorly aimed efforts at regulation.

To my friends in the environmental community who raise legitimate concerns about a range of issues surrounding this policy I encourage you to sit down with us in a dialogue, at both the Federal and State levels. Bring your ideas for how we can monitor and protect water without sacrificing what remains of Oregon's forest industry. You will be heard and I stand ready to work with you. But it is not enough to simply dictate outcomes. We have to first look for solutions that avoid the epidemic of litigation and appeals that threaten the sustainability and survival of our timber industry. You are, of course, right to expect that we arrive at those solutions within a reasonable period of time.

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

Mr. President, last week, the House Speaker--Speaker Boehner--and President Obama and his administration were both calling for comprehensive tax reform as part of a large budget deal. Obviously, today, that seems to have lost some momentum, and I wanted to start this afternoon by saying tax reform is too important to abandon after 48 hours' worth of discussion.

To his credit, Chairman Conrad recognizes that, and certainly that is what I heard this weekend when, similar to the distinguished Presiding Officer, I was home and had the chance to travel across eastern Oregon, stopping in small towns. I think there is a keen awareness that it is not possible to cut our way out of this economic challenge; that we also have to grow. We have to grow. We have to make growth-oriented changes in tax law.

That is what the Conrad budget clearly offers a wide berth to do. In fact, I am of the view that progrowth tax reform, for example, is one of the few ways to generate revenue that both Democrats and Republicans will support. When you put people to work--and we have millions and millions of our fellow citizens out of work today--those are folks who can, in the private sector, start paying taxes again. That is what happened after the last major tax reform bill in 1986. In those 2 years--the 2 years after major tax reform--6.3 million new jobs were created in the private sector. We have an opportunity to do that again, and the Conrad budget offers a wide berth in which to do it.

So you generate revenue--revenue that both Democrats and Republicans can support--and create jobs in the private sector the way Democrats and Republicans have said they want to do. Certainly, it is pretty clear, as of today, there isn't anything as promising in the economic toolshed for long-term growth as tax reform. The fact is, a lot of other alternatives have been tried. Certainly, the Federal Reserve has done its share. We have the Recovery Act. There have been a variety of steps that have been taken.

My colleague from Oregon, in my view, has done yeomen's work on the effort to make sure homeowners--which is an enormous economic problem-- have additional time to work through the very challenging situations millions are facing in the housing market. So we have thrown a lot of economic tools at this huge challenge, but we obviously have a lot more to do. I don't see any more promising path--no more promising path-- than tax reform for the long-term economic growth this country needs. The Conrad budget offers a wide berth in order to tap that opportunity.

The fact is, we understand what needs to be done in terms of tax reform. The fundamental language--the principles of that kind of reform--are laid out in the Conrad budget. We ought to go in there, clean out a score of these special interest tax loopholes, use that money to hold down rates for everybody, and keep progressivity. Those are the three key principles.

A number of my colleagues have spoken. I know my friend from Arizona, with whom I serve on the Finance Committee, Senator Kyl, in a very fine op-ed piece he wrote in the Wall Street Journal not too long ago, talked about tax reform built around exactly those principles--cleaning out the loopholes, holding down the rates, and, to his credit, Senator Kyl specifically talked about the need to ensure progressivity in the Tax Code.

Senator Coats and I have introduced legislation that picks up on those key principles of the 1986 tax reform legislation. In fact, we modernize the code in line with that kind of thinking--certainly important to do because there have been thousands and thousands of tax changes made since 1986. So it is certainly time to go in there and trim out all those unnecessary special interest tax breaks, and we can do it in a way that will create jobs.

For example, right now, in the Federal Tax Code, there are actually incentives to export jobs out of the United States. Say that to yourself--export jobs out of the United States. What we want to do is export goods out of the United States. In rural Oregon this weekend, the farmers were telling me about how they want to get their agricultural products into Asia and other markets around the world. So we can grow things here, make things here, add value to them here and ship them somewhere. That is what we would like to be exporting. Instead, under the tax law, there is actually an incentive to export jobs.

When you set up shop overseas and you are doing business overseas, you get to defer your American taxes. So what Senator Coats and I seek to do--and this is something I think is even more important today than it was a quarter century ago because of the global economic challenge-- is to take that incentive that now goes for exporting jobs out of the United States and we would use those very same dollars to dramatically slash rates for companies that offer what I call red, white, and blue jobs--jobs in this country. The Conrad budget offers a very substantial berth for taking that kind of approach in tax reform, where he specifically calls for lowering tax rates for American businesses. I particularly wish to see that done because of the message I heard this last weekend, where folks specifically, without my even mentioning tax reform, talked about the need to keep jobs here at home.

We are going to, over the next few days, see, of course, the negotiations with the President and the Congressional leadership go forward. Chairman Conrad and other members of the Budget Committee will be out discussing these issues as well. But I just hope, No. 1, the cause of tax reform is seen as far too important to give up on after only a 48-hour flurry of interest and everybody then saying: Well, I guess we will have to do it another time. The time to make sure it is done is now.

Senator Coats and I said earlier this month that what we ought to do--recognizing that you can't write a complete tax reform bill between now and August 2--is to get a commitment, lock in a strategy, to do comprehensive tax reform in the fall and early next year. That alone would send, in my view, a positive and bipartisan message to the financial markets of this country that there are going to be some changes. So what we need is a roadmap for economic growth.

There are other features of the Conrad budget I think make a lot of sense. I am particularly pleased about the opportunities for investment in infrastructure--roads and bridges. Certainly, that would provide an opportunity for something that has worked in the past--the Build America Bonds program, which has been so successful in our State. I think Senator Kerry's ideas for an infrastructure bank are excellent ones. I support those as well. The best thing about that approach is we know we have to find a way in our consumer-driven society to start stimulating demand--demand for goods and services.

There are few economic multipliers in our country for the short term, such as transportation. So the Conrad budget that puts a premium on those kinds of approaches in the short-term makes a lot of sense for me as we look to the longer term, which I would define as the opportunity to set this country on a progrowth economic strategy, with tax reform in the forefront in a way that helps our economy to be both fairer and more efficient. We will also see a lot of other benefits.

It was brought up to me over the weekend at home, in eastern Oregon, matters we have talked about before, such as the alternative minimum tax. Talk about something that just defies common sense: the idea that the alternative minimum tax would force middle-class people, people making $60,000, $70,000, $80,000 a year, to fill out their taxes twice using two separate systems just defies any semblance of sanity.

So referring, again, to what happened this weekend, are we really going to tell American taxpayers getting clobbered by the alternative minimum tax that after 2 days' worth of discussion about tax reform we are just going to walk away and pursue some other topic? That doesn't make any sense to me. Certainly, Chairman Conrad's budget, which does, as I have indicated, provide a broad berth for tax reform, makes it clear that he shares our view.

So, finally, if we have in front of us, as we will with progrowth tax reform, the opportunity to create jobs in the private sector, generate revenue in a way that Democrats and Republicans can agree on, make ourselves more competitive in tough global markets, and do it in a way that brings the political parties together, I think it is clear that has the fundamentals of what can take this country's economy in a better and healthier direction.

I want it understood that in spite of what happened this weekend, in spite of the sense that maybe tax reform is going to be put off yet again, I am not going to give up for a minute. We are going to have another hearing that is going to be very important this week--Chairman Baucus, Chairman Camp, the Finance Committee, the Ways and Means Committee getting together to talk about tax reform. So we know what needs to be done. Now it is a question of having the political will to go forward.

I simply want to say to the President, and I think I can say to the Senate today--Senator Coats and I--despite the idea that this is too hard to do, that it can't be done now, let's put it off for another time, we are going to come back to this floor and say again and again: It has been done. We need to do it now when there are so few other tools in the economic toolshed. It would be wrong to walk away after this brief flurry of interest in something that is so fundamental to the economic well-being of millions of our people.

I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask the Senate to join me in acknowledging the 15 Columbia River Basin tribes' involvement in the Columbia River Treaty negotiation and review process. As some of you may know, the Columbia River Treaty is an agreement between Canada and the United States on the development and operation of the major hydroelectric dams in the Columbia River Basin. It addresses power and flood control benefits in both countries. The treaty has been in effect since 1964. Under the provisions of the existing treaty, if either country wishes to modify or cancel the treaty, it must notify the other country by the year 2014.

With 2014 approaching, the United States and Canadian treaty ``entities'' have already begun talks regarding a possible extension and modification of the treaty. The Columbia River Treaty review team has designated representatives from 15 Columbia River tribes, also known as the Sovereign Review Team, SRT. The Columbia Basin tribes have vital cultural and natural resources at stake since their homelands are located in the area affected by the treaty and, as sovereign units of government and members of the Sovereign Review Team, SRT--they have a right to play an important role in those negotiations. It is important to recognize the unique fishing rights for salmon that will have to be taken into account during any negotiations of this treaty with our neighbors to the north. The outcome of these negotiations could have a profound impact on the Northwestern United States.

I really appreciate one of the designated tribal representatives from Oregon, the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, for their continuous involvement. I also appreciate the other members of the Sovereign Review Team. The tribes and folks from the Pacific Northwest all share a common desire for proactive approaches in salmon restoration and recovery, and it is important to come together with shared strengths, joint efforts and coordinated education strategies.

Unfortunately, the Columbia River Treaty was enacted during a time in our history when consideration was not given to the treaty's effects on the natural and cultural resources of tribes/first nations whose homelands are located within the Columbia River Basin. Lack of previous dialogue and inclusion of tribal perspectives has disrupted regional and tribal interests by leading to the degradation of rivers, the salmon population, traditional food sources, natural resources, and tribal customs and identities.

The Columbia River Treaty Review provides an opportunity for the United States to include Columbia Basin tribes in the treaty review process. I want to emphasize the importance of tribal consultation and incorporation of traditional knowledge in this process--to ensure protection and conservation of the numerous natural resources that tribal people's way of life are dependent on.

The treaty review provides an opportunity to discuss and learn ways to strengthen both the government-to-government relationship that exists between the United States and the individual Indian nations as well as the U.S.'s position relative to Canada. This can lead the U.S. to advance its relationship with 15 additional sovereigns. I have enjoyed working with tribes on a number of important issues; I value our continued friendship and look forward to working together in the future. I am proud to support the 15 Columbia River Basin tribes in their efforts to stand alongside the United States in negotiations of the Columbia River Treaty and stand ready to assist in any way I can.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, international trade is one of the best ways to create more good-paying jobs for our people--as long as our workers and our companies are treated fairly in the tough global markets in which they compete.

That is not the case today. Chinese trade cheats, after being found guilty of dumping their goods in America, now launder these goods by illegally shipping them through Korea and other countries. This illegality is undercutting our workers, undercutting our companies, and is driving hard-working Americans out of jobs. All this is taking place under the sleepy eyes of America's so-called trade enforcement agencies.

Because this trade rip-off is growing and the Senate will soon take up trade agreements that could fix this problem, I wish to take just a few minutes this afternoon to make clear how this scam actually works. The reason I have this information is because as chairman of the Senate Finance Subcommittee on International Trade, my staff set up a dummy company that intervened directly with suppliers in China in order to learn firsthand how the Chinese firms brazenly shirk America's trade laws.

First, after a thorough and substantial investigation, what happens is that the U.S. Department of Commerce imposes antidumping duties on certain Chinese merchandise that was shown to be dumped, which is to say the merchandise is being sold at below-market prices. The next thing that happens is the Chinese supplier of the merchandise is tagged with the antidumping duties. Rather than stop selling and dumping goods into the United States, the Chinese essentially shore up their American buyers by soothingly conveying that these duties are not going to impact their prices. The suppliers sometimes characterize complying with U.S. trade law as merely a political issue.

After that, the Chinese goods are shipped into Korea, for example, where the goods are repacked into boxes that say ``Made in Korea.'' The documentation then follows the merchandise that is also going to be altered or forged to suggest that the merchandise indeed originates in Korea rather than China. From there, the merchandise enters our country, often at the Port of Long Beach in California, and U.S. Customs officials declare the goods to not be subject to antidumping duties because, purportedly, if one looks at all the labeling, they don't originate in China.

This transshipment is laundering, plain and simple, and it is a rip- off of the American worker.

My concern is once the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement goes into force, Korea would become a supermagnet for this kind of merchandise laundering. Why would any Chinese supplier launder merchandise through Singapore, for example, when doing so through Korea would bless their merchandise with the duty-free status that the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement provides? The answer is obvious. They wouldn't.

That is why the Congress needs, through legislation, to send clear instruction to the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection--and these are our cops. They are the commercial cops at America's ports. They need to be instructed about how to identify and combat the invasion of America's trade laws. In my view, this is absolutely critical to ensuring the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement is not a tool that further empowers unscrupulous Chinese exporters.

For almost a century, our trade laws, the antidumping and the countervailing duties, have been enforced by Democratic and Republican administrations. They represent the frontline defense that protects our American workers. They are the laws that protect our businesses and our families from unfair and unscrupulous trade practices employed by foreign competition. But what we are seeing around the country is that these antidumping and countervailing duties are being evaded, and the problem is growing. What we have seen is, it takes years for the government to look into and conclude investigations on merchandise laundering. During this period of foot-dragging, our companies get hammered by foreign trade cheats, and when the cheats get caught, the enforcement agencies have almost never taken the steps necessary to ensure that the duties that are owed are actually collected.

The discrepancy between how much the U.S. Government is owed by these foreign trade cheats and how much is actually collected is embarrassing. We are collecting something on the order of 20 percent of what is owed to our government, and that is only from the companies that actually got caught

and were prosecuted. The fact is, there are many more that are missed every year.

So I hope colleagues, as we go to the trade debate, understand that the point of trade agreements is, it is possible to export more of our goods and services around the world. What we want in trade agreements is to grow things here. We want to make things here. We want to add value to them here, and we want to ship them somewhere. So we want to export our goods and services, not export our jobs. But, unfortunately, again and again, as a result of our competitors evading the trade laws, we have a broken enforcement process.

That is why three Democrats and three Republicans in the Senate have joined me in introducing a piece of legislation that puts the teeth back in our trade laws. Senators Snowe and Blunt and McCaskill and Brown of Ohio and Portman and Schumer and I all joined--three Democrats and three Republicans--to introduce S. 1133.

This legislation requires Customs to quickly and transparently investigate duty evasion. It requires the Customs agency to use existing law to ensure that it can collect the correct duties on merchandise. The legislation requires Customs to appropriately share this information with other Federal agencies because we have seen, again and again, that often one of the agencies doesn't talk to the other. Finally, it requires the appropriate agencies to make sure that in the future, they are going to report to the Congress promptly on what is being done to fully address the problem.

Let me wrap up--I see colleagues on the floor--by simply saying that I believe trade agreements create more jobs for our people, but the fact is trade agreements without enforcement can cost our people jobs. So this time, as the Congress goes forward with considering trade legislation, it is important to show the American people that as our trade agenda moves forward and moves forward aggressively in the days ahead, instead of major trade competitors laundering merchandise, as we have seen in our committee's investigation, to avoid the trade laws, our trade laws would finally be fully enforced.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, millions of Americans are hurt economically. Yet so much of the debate on the Senate floor seems to be Democrats and Republicans fighting with each other or rehashing old arguments. It seems almost as if there is a default strategy: either pound on the other party or recycle some of the stale positions that have been repeated again and again.

Senator Coats and I believe that none of this really does anything to help the millions of Americans who are out of work or get the economy moving again. The two of us have been coming to the floor of the Senate, and will continue to do so in the days ahead, to talk about what really works, what really works to get the American economy moving again.

An example would be tax reform, tax reform like the sort of tax reform that was passed when Democrats and Ronald Reagan teamed up. That tax reform effort helped to create 6.3 million new jobs in the 2 years after it was enacted. No one can say there is any one factor that alone creates millions of new jobs, but it certainly didn't hurt. Certainly, it helped to set the economic climate, Democrats and Republicans coming together. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in the 2 years after that kind of bipartisan effort, the country created 6.3 million new jobs.

It is not going to be possible, of course, to pass comprehensive tax reform between now and August 2. But Senator Coats and I have said that as part of these budget negotiations, as part of the effort to deal with the budget in a comprehensive way and to deal with the debt ceiling issue, it ought to be possible to lock in for consideration in the fall and in the remainder of this Congress the kind of bipartisan effort that we saw a quarter of a century ago that represents an idea that really works; an idea with a proven track record of working to boost the economy that has been bipartisan, where Democrats and Republicans, instead of spending their time pounding on each other, say: Let's come together and eliminate some of these ridiculous special interest tax breaks which are limiting our ability to grow and create family-wage jobs.

Senator Coats and I are going to spend a few minutes this afternoon talking about the impact of real tax reform on jobs and economic growth. I would just like to start by thanking my friend from Indiana. He has been a pleasure to work with. But his reaction to that kind of approach, where we focus on really what works, especially between now and August 2 in these budget negotiations, Democrats and Republicans having an opportunity to look at spending and look at growth to make sure that out of those negotiations by August 2 there is a way to lock in for the fall and the remainder of the Congress the effort to promote bipartisan tax reform and get our economy growing again--I would be interested in hearing my colleague's reaction to that.

Mr. President, I thank my friend. We are going to talk through some of the specifics of why this is important as a way to boost the economy. In the beginning, what I would like to just lay out is that as we have seen these discussions go forward over the last couple of months about boosting the economy, invariably the fight comes down to the question of whether we ought to spend more in order, particularly in a consumer-driven economy, to create jobs and put our folks back to work.

What Senator Coats and I have described is an opportunity and a way that is deficit neutral. As my friend from Indiana knows, this has been demonstrated by our analysis from the Joint Committee on Taxation. This is a deficit-neutral strategy for putting our people back to work because by eliminating some of these special interest tax breaks--and thousands and thousands of them have gotten into the Tax Code over the last quarter century--we can take those foolish tax breaks off the revenue roles and use those very same dollars to create what we call red, white, and blue jobs to put people back to work in the manufacturing sector in Indiana. Of course, the President and I know how deep the hurt is in our home State.

I wanted to begin this by way of making sure that folks saw last month's job report as a wake-up call that would indicate that current economic policies are not creating the jobs our citizens and our economy need and would specifically be willing to look at new approaches, new approaches in the sense that they be genuinely bipartisan but proven in the sense that they have a track record.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics puts the national unemployment rate at 9.1 percent in May. As the distinguished Presiding Officer knows, we have parts of rural Oregon with unemployment that probably, if you were to calculate the real rate of unemployment, is over 20 percent. So the economic hurt is enormous. The Bureau of Labor Statistics found that of almost 14 million Americans who want to work but cannot find jobs, almost half of them have been out of work for 27 weeks or more. Of the employed, 8.5 million have to settle for part-time jobs. Among the hardest hit are young people, the people who are trying to get in the workforce, are anxious to show that they have good work habits and discipline but cannot find work.

We lost 8.5 million jobs between the worst of the fiscal crisis and the end of 2010, and only a small portion of those jobs has been created. Moreover, many of the new jobs that have been created do not pay as much as the jobs that were lost, in particular, the loss of manufacturing jobs. So many of our citizens, when they can get alternative employment, end up with wages far less than what they made in manufacturing. In addition, income inequality is growing because high school graduates have a jobless rate twice that of college graduates.

With millions of Americans struggling to find jobs, Senator Coats and I wish to spend a few minutes to talk about how we can come together, and talk about ways to grow the economy. I have mentioned there is a proven track record in terms of tax reform helping. Because of the historic tax reform in 1986 between populist Democrats such as former Congressman Dick Gephardt and the late President Reagan, we had 6.3 million new nonfarm jobs created in the 2 years after that law was passed. I believe it can happen again.

The Manufacturers Alliance forecasts that Senator Coats and I, with our legislation, might have the opportunity to create nearly 2 million new jobs. The Heritage Foundation came in with the same sort of analysis.

We can never lose sight of the need to create jobs in an economy such as this. I wish to bring my colleague into the discussion at this point because he has done so much work, not just in Indiana--where they have, to their credit, focused on a manufacturing strategy for our country-- but as part of this bipartisan effort, and get his sense of why the approach we are advocating today could be an economic boost for our country.

Mr. President, I am glad Senator Coats made that last point, especially because it is getting hardly any discussion here in the Senate, and that is with respect to the weak consumption we are seeing in our country, particularly middle-class folks who have the sense that there is not going to be economic security right now. They do not have as much money in their pockets as they would like. They have suffered huge shocks that have caused them to pull back from some of the purchases they would otherwise make.

The Presiding Officer of the Senate has done outstanding work with respect to trying to protect middle-class people who lost all this equity in their homes. That usually serves as some kind of collateral for folks with a need to get a loan. That has not been there. We have had folks underemployed in much of the workforce.

What we see is that in our economy, which has always been consumer driven, as Senator Coats has pointed out, we are not seeing the kind of demand from middle-class folks for goods and services. They are not going out and buying the refrigerator they might wish to have for their family. They cannot get a computer for their child. They are not able to make the purchases that are so important in a consumer-driven economy.

What Senator Coats and I are saying is that as Democrats such as Dick Gephardt and former President Ronald Reagan said a quarter century ago, they want to come together and put money into people's pockets. They want to make sure the middle-class folks--who are just getting clobbered, as we have seen for months now--would be in a position to get back into the economy and start demanding some of those goods and services that are so important for long-term economic well-being.

Senator Coats and I have sought to put more money into people's pockets by repealing the alternative minimum tax. We had an excellent hearing in Chairman Baucus's committee yesterday on simplification.

Get this. The middle-class person is now essentially going through bureaucratic water torture on this alternative minimum tax. They have to fill out their taxes twice on two separate systems. What Senator Coats and I have said is let's repeal it. That will put some money back into the pockets of middle-class folks. As Senator Coats has pointed out, middle-class folks won't have to spend all that money paying out for accountants and all kinds of other people, trying to fill out all those alternative minimum tax forms. We will put some money into the pockets of the middle class that way.

Senator Coats and I also advocate nearly tripling the standard deduction for all our taxpayers, which again can be a real boon for the middle-class consumer, which can help us spur consumer demand and, with that, job creation.

I am very glad Senator Coats has zeroed in on the question of the consequences of underconsumption by consumers.

I think I would next probably like to have my friend go through some of the benefits we wish to provide to small business. We all know that small business is the job creator, the job engine of our economy.

If Senator Coats would outline some of the benefits that on a bipartisan basis we ought to be zeroing in on with respect to small businesses, I think that would be very helpful.

Mr. President, I thank my friend from Indiana. He makes a number of important points we want to make sure are considered as the discussion about taxes goes forward. For example, Senator Coats pointed out on this question of changing just the corporate tax alone--what are essentially C corporations--the reality is the vast majority of businesses in this country are not C corporations; they are partnerships, limited liability corporations, sole proprietorships. They are about 80 percent of the businesses in this country. So Senator Coats has made the important point that to bring about tax reform, we can't just go with corporate taxation. We have to get at the needs of millions and millions of these small businesses.

Chairman Bernanke was asked about this in the Budget Committee, and he said specifically that it was important to do comprehensive reform in order to generate the best opportunity for economic growth and job creation rather than corporate reform alone. Senator Coats also makes an important point, as we wrap up, about the temporary nature of our Tax Code and how frustrating that is to American businesses that need to have some capacity to predict what is ahead to generate jobs.

The Wall Street Journal reported the other day that the only thing permanent about the American Tax Code is that it is temporary, and we have more than quadrupled the number of temporary provisions in the Tax Code in just the last few years. That uncertainty discourages businesses from investing in growth and hiring, as Senator Coats has noted, and that is why it is going to be important to look at the Tax Code in a comprehensive way, both for individuals and corporations, so that going forward, all our taxpayers have some sense of predictability and certainty about what their tax treatment will entail.

My last point is, I recently had a chance to talk to one of the veterans of the 1986 tax reform debate, and we visited about some of the circumstances involved in that historic reform and some of the challenges ahead. When he was done, he said: What in the world is holding people up from getting going on this? What is really holding everybody up? We know what we need to do. There have been commissions, a whole host of them. President Obama had an excellent one that agreed with much of what we have talked about this afternoon. President George W. Bush had a commission that was chaired by several of our former colleagues. I thought much of their proposal was on point. That is why what one of the veterans of that 1986 reform legislation had to say to me about ``what is holding people up'' is so important.

As Senator Coats noted, we are not going to do comprehensive tax reform between now and August 2. Everybody understands that. But there is absolutely no reason--in order to come together in the Senate with an approach that doesn't add to the Federal deficit, with the proven track record of helping to advance economic security--that between now and August 2, as part of these budget negotiations, there is no reason in that agreement we shouldn't lock in a strategy for getting on to tax reform in the fall and in the remainder of this Congress.

So I thank Senator Coats. He mentioned Senator Gregg. I feel so fortunate to have had two colleagues--and we were in the House together--having an opportunity, Senator Coats and I, to work together on this in the Senate. I think we have always believed that we ought to focus on what works rather than the default strategy of rehashing old arguments and just having these partisan fights. So I thank Senator Coats. We will have our eye on the effort between now and August 2 to make sure tax reform gets the place it deserves for the fall and the remainder of the Congress.

I thank my friend from Indiana.

Mr. President, with that I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Sean Mills be given the privilege of the floor through the rest of the day.

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize someone whose name became synonymous with courage and equality, someone who in my State is every bit a pioneer as those who blazed the trails that opened the West.

Betty Roberts passed away recently at age 88, and while Oregon has lost one of its true giants, we have not lost the memory of what she gave to our State. Every time you turned around, Betty Roberts was pioneering. In the 1970s, she was the only woman serving in the Oregon State Senate. By 1977, she was the first woman to serve on the Oregon Court of Appeals and 5 years later she was the first woman on the Oregon Supreme Court.

I first met Betty in 1975 when she was one of the first elected officials in Oregon to give her full support to what was then a little known and burgeoning organization fighting for the rights of the elderly, the Gray Panthers. Over the nearly four decades of our friendship, I came to know and respect her as a tireless advocate for doing what was right based on facts and the truth.

Her road to prominence in Oregon's legal, legislative and political circles was not an easy one. As the Oregonian pointed out in its editorial, ``Betty Roberts often heard the word `no' during the first half of her life. No to finishing college, teaching or running for public office, and no to following her ambitions.''

Anyone who knew Betty recognized that she did not take no for an answer. She went from being a teacher to earning a master's degree and a doctorate, all while raising a family. She went from being elected to a local school board to being elected to the Oregon House of Representatives and from there to the Oregon State Senate.

As a member of the legislature, she supported such pioneering Oregon laws as the bottle bill and land-use planning. What she will be most remembered for, however, is her unwavering commitment to equality for women and minorities. She knew firsthand the barriers women faced. She overcame them and dedicated her life to tearing down those barriers and giving other women the same opportunities she made for herself.

In her memoir titled ``With Grit and by Grace,'' Betty wrote that she had ``a reasonable desire to live the life I wanted.''

We know now that Betty lived the life that she desired and my State and this Nation is better for it.

Mr. President, let me first say I thought the statement from the distinguished Senator from Georgia was spot on, and I particularly appreciated his point that when we confirm Leon Panetta to head Defense, no one can possibly predict what kind of challenges he will face there. But this is the kind of person who, because of ability and background, is up to any kind

of challenges that are thrown to him. So I want to associate myself with my colleague from Georgia.

Mr. President, I would suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to yield back the remainder of the time and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Shelby Clark and Dan Majewski from Senator Bingaman's office be given the privileges of the floor for Tuesday, June 21, 2011.

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

Mr. President, tomorrow, the Senate will vote on the confirmation of Michael Simon to serve as U.S. District Court Judge for the District of Oregon. Michael Simon is a good and decent man. In my home State where we have a judicial emergency by the standards of Chief Justice Roberts, it is vitally important that Michael Simon be confirmed. To begin, I wish to thank Chairman Leahy; ranking minority member Grassley; the majority leader, Senator Reid, and minority leader McConnell for bringing this nomination to the floor today.

Senator Merkley and I have been proud to put forward Mr. Simon's name for consideration by the President. We were enthused by his subsequent nomination, and we are now hopeful he will soon be able to continue his service to the people of Oregon in this new capacity.

Michael Simon is both a distinguished lawyer and a legal scholar with a diverse and impressive legal career. That career includes work as a public servant, as a litigator, a pro tempore judge, and as a professor. Michael Simon now is a partner at the firm of Perkins Coie in Portland, and he has worked there since 1986. After graduating summa cum laude from UCLA, Mr. Simon attended Harvard Law School where he again graduated with honors cum laude.

He began his legal career in the Department of Justice antitrust division where he served as a trial attorney for 5 years. During his time working in Washington, DC, Mr. Simon also volunteered for and served as special U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. It was through his work at the antitrust division that Mr. Simon made one of his most notable contributions, and that was a contribution to strengthening consumer protection law. The distinguished President pro tempore of the Senate knows from his days in Connecticut as attorney general how important it is that there be public advocates for consumer rights because so often this is a field that gets short shrift. People say they are for the rights of consumers, but these cases can be hard and time consuming to bring. That is what Michael Simon did and did so well.

Working on behalf of the Department of Justice on the case of United States v. American Airlines, Mr. Simon successfully argued for extending the reach of the Sherman Act to include monopolization and attempted monopolization. In my view, this extension is one that benefits consumers each and every day across this country. Frankly, to have someone on the bench who has this kind of expertise in fighting monopolies and protecting the rights of consumers is a very special qualification that I would simply commend to the Senate as we consider the nomination of Michael Simon.

Throughout his work both in the public sector and in private practice, Mr. Simon has been an active member of our community. In fact, I have had many conversations with him in his capacity as the immediate past president of Congregation Beth Israel in my hometown where he constantly is the leader of the congregation, reaching out to conscript volunteers for a host of projects, particularly those that involve children. He has engaged in extensive pro bono work. He has volunteered for many local nonprofit organizations. I would call him the official champion of voluntarism, because when we look at some of the causes he has volunteered for--he has been a past board member of the Waverly Children's Home; he has been past president and current board member of the Classroom Law Project--we see that he consistently comes back to recognizing the importance of the well-being and security of children in our community. That, too, is a special area of expertise and advocacy that he will bring to the bench, confirmed by the Senate, and another area that I wish to commend Mr. Simon to the Senate for as we look at his candidacy this week.

This seat has been vacant for nearly 2 years. As the distinguished President pro tempore of the Senate knows, there is a process by which one actually determines a judicial emergency. It has essentially been defined by Chief Justice Roberts, and we clearly have such an emergency in my home State of Oregon. So it is very welcome news for Oregonians that we have this opportunity to have a full bench, to have all justices on deck, and it is my view that Mr. Simon is an outstanding nominee. I have absolutely no reservations that he will be a superior judge.

I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in supporting an exceptional individual--a person who is fair and thoughtful and who brings years and years of expertise and a host of very important legal assignments. I am especially grateful that he is a resident of my hometown where he has distinguished himself with extraordinary volunteering for a whole host of causes that are important, especially the future of our children.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I see the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee here, so let me yield the floor at this time.

Mr. President, today I am reintroducing a bill to reform the Capital Construction Fund to address major changes in the Nation's fisheries and to allow the Nation's fishers to have access to needed funds to prevent overfishing and to help create jobs.

The Capital Construction Fund, CCF, program was originally developed at a time when American fishers were having a hard time competing with highly efficient foreign fishing vessels, modern boats that often harvested U.S. fishery resources within sight of our own shores. The initial idea behind the CCF Program was to enable U.S. fishers to accumulate the funds necessary to develop a modern fishing fleet by allowing them to deposit a portion of their fishing-related earnings into a CCF savings account on a tax-deferred basis. Under the CCF program, monies subsequently withdrawn from the CCF accounts would remain tax free as long as they were invested in new or rebuilt fishing vessels. At the same time, any unauthorized withdrawals from CCF accounts were subject to severe interest and other penalties.

The program was a success; the CCF program helped the U.S. industry build a modern state-of-the-art fishing fleet. Unfortunately, that fleet has now become overcapitalized, a problem that has been exacerbated as managers have become more and more concerned about potential overfishing and have begun to reduce the amount of fish that they allow fishers to catch each year. As a result, the U.S. commercial fishing fleet now has more harvesting capacity than the U.S. fishery resource can sustainably support. The problem now is that the monies that remain on deposit in CCF accounts represent a potential for further overcapitalization at a time when less capitalization is needed. Yet the CCF regulations currently penalize withdrawals made for anything other than a bigger or better boat.

The issue now is what to do about the money that remains ``stranded'' in existing CCF accounts. Ironically, just as the current generation of fishers is getting ready to retire, the program puts heavy penalties on them if they take money out of their CCF accounts without using it for anything other than to further capitalize an already overcapitalized fleet.

The resulting situation is problematic for the fishers, the industry and the resource. That's why I am reintroducing legislation today along with my colleague Senator Murkowski--to address the problem of stranded capital still on deposit in various CCF accounts and to relieve the pressure to increase further capitalization of the fishing fleet. My legislation will enable CCF fundholders to make a one-time withdrawal from their CCF accounts without requiring them to reinvest it in the fishing industry. Instead, they will be required to pay the taxes due on the monies withdrawn, but without having to pay interest or other penalties on such withdrawals. Those funds would be freed up for other purposes, including starting a new business and finding other ways to support and create jobs. An income-averaging formula would be applied to the withdrawals so as to avoid an excessive tax rate on the one-time withdrawal. The fishers taking advantage of such an opportunity to take money out of their CCF accounts penalty free would then be required to close their CCF accounts and would be prohibited from further participation in the program. This is a win-win-win situation. The fisher gets to take the money out of his CCF without having to pay penalties and interest, but still pays the taxes when due; the government gets taxes on the withdrawals; and the resource and the fishers who remain in the fishery avoid further capitalization of an already overcapitalized industry.

I look forward to working with Senator Murkowski, the fishing community, and the bill's other supporters to advance this legislation to the President's desk.