Floor Statements

Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Affordable Housing Preservation and Revitalization Act. I am delighted and honored to be joined in this effort by my good friend and colleague, Senator Jeff Merkley. It has been my privilege to work with Senator Merkley and his staff on an issue that is so important to our State of Oregon and to folks around the country.

There has been a lot of talk about housing in the media over the past year. The topic of most of these conversations has been the foreclosure crisis and the continued fallout from the mortgage meltdown.

But there is another housing story here, even though it may not get the same attention or airtime: It is the story of homelessness and the struggle to find affordable housing, and for thousands of Oregonians it's a daily reality.

Like many States, Oregon is experiencing a sharp rise in homelessness.

The most recent count available from Oregon, found 19,208 people homeless on a particular night. That number represented a 12 percent increase in homelessness over 2009.

This same count also indicates that 31 percent of those experiencing homelessness were children and the number of homeless families with children rose 33 percent from 2009.

In times like these, the Federal Government can hardly stand to lose its stock of affordable housing. Sadly, that is exactly what's happening.

As long-term contracts are coming due, many landlords are leaving the business of affordable housing for the private market. As these owners convert to market rents, which is in their economic interest, the low- income tenants will be unable to afford their homes. With fewer and fewer places to turn, many of these folks will end up on the street.

Some of these properties have what are known as residual receipts-- funds left over once the operating expenses and owner's distribution have been paid. Currently, this money can only be used in the most extreme of situations. As a result, many of these residual receipts have accumulated for nearly 3 decades. In Oregon alone, estimates suggest there are more than $10 million in untapped residual receipts.

Senator Merkley and I believe these funds represent a substantial asset that could be used to help preserve affordable housing projects with expiring contracts. That is why we are introducing the Affordable Housing Preservation and Revitalization Act.

Our legislation would permit residual receipts to be transferred with affordable housing properties that are sold to non-profits, provided the non-profits commit to preserving and maintaining the housing stock as affordable.

Our legislation isn't a magic bullet and it certainly will not ensure that every American can put a roof over their head. But we think it's the kind of commonsense approach that Americans can get behind. I hope that our colleagues will join us in supporting this bill.

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

Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the Commerce Committee dealing with an exceptionally

important bill. I appreciate his courtesy at this time.

Mr. President, later in the evening the Senate will confirm Judge Marco Hernandez, who has been nominated to serve as a U.S. district court judge for the District of Oregon. The vacancy that Judge Hernandez will fill is one that Chief Justice Roberts has designated a judicial emergency. Given that, I thank Chairman Leahy, Ranking Member Grassley, Majority Leader Reid, and Minority Leader McConnell for bringing this nomination to the floor today.

I also note Oregon has another opening and another outstanding nominee, Mr. Michael Simon, whom I expect to be reported out of committee this week. I hope he, too, will be brought to the Senate floor quickly.

It is no surprise that Judge Marco Hernandez was nominated to the Federal bench because his life could serve as a billboard for the American dream. At the age of 17, Marco Hernandez moved to Oregon by himself. Needing to support himself, he took a job as a dishwasher, later found a better job as a janitor, and eventually Marco became a teacher's aide. At that point, Judge Hernandez began taking night classes at a local community college with the hope of one day attending a 4-year college. Finally, he was able to enroll at Western Oregon State College, and he quickly demonstrated his ability to excel.

Judge Hernandez earned the Delmer Dewey Award as the most outstanding male student in his class. Following college, Marco went on to graduate from the University of Washington School of Law.

From the beginning of his legal career, Judge Hernandez demonstrated a strong commitment to public service. After law school, Judge Hernandez worked at Oregon Legal Services representing farm workers. He then served as a deputy district attorney and was later appointed as a State court judge, a position he has served in for the past 15 years.

Judge Hernandez is so well regarded across my home State and across the political spectrum that he has been nominated not by one but by two Presidents of different parties and at the recommendations of two Senators of different parties. Judge Hernandez was first nominated for the district court by President Bush in 2008 when my friend and former colleague, Senator Gordon Smith, led the nomination process. At that time I supported the recommendation of Judge Hernandez.

Unfortunately, the 110th Congress was unable to act upon his nomination before adjourning. In the 111th Congress I recommended Judge Hernandez's nomination to President Obama, and I am very pleased that Senator Merkley, who has joined me in the Senate, has been a strong supporter of Judge Hernandez as well. I was very pleased when President Obama announced that he, too, like President Bush, thought it important for Judge Hernandez to serve on the Federal bench.

One of the reasons leaders from both political parties support Judge Hernandez is that throughout his judicial career he has demonstrated a special affinity for creative solutions. He implemented an innovative domestic violence program to aggressively pursue offenders and created a new program for mentally ill defendants, which Judge Hernandez continues to oversee.

With a tremendous record of public service, innovation, and commitment to justice, no one was surprised when Judge Hernandez was reported out of the Judiciary Committee unanimously. He has had the support of both Republicans and Democrats and a broad range of legal organizations. He has received the strong backing of the Hispanic National Bar Association. In fact, Judge Hernandez would be the first Hispanic article III judge in my home State.

It is good news for the people of Oregon, and it is good news for the Federal bench that today the Senate is taking up the confirmation of Judge Hernandez. I strongly urge all my colleagues to join me in supporting an outstanding individual, Judge Marco Hernandez, for U.S. district court judge.

I thank, again, Chairman Rockefeller, who is dealing with an extremely important bill for his courtesy for letting me make these remarks about Judge Hernandez.

I yield the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Blumenthal.) The Senator from Arizona.

Amendment No. 4

Mr. President, I am proud that my home State of Oregon has so many citizen soldiers and even prouder of the way we take care of them. In the world of veterans' services, one real shining light is Clackamas Community College. I am delighted today to take this opportunity to recognize Clackamas Community College for being selected to receive the Patriotic Employer Award from the National Committee for Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve, ESGR. Clackamas Community College sets an extraordinary example in its care of our nation's veterans that I would hope every institution of higher learning could follow. Clackamas Community College doesn't just stop at educating its students. It serves every member of its community, especially its veterans.

When servicemembers come back from the war zone, it takes some adjusting to get back to the routine of life they left behind when they went to serve. As anyone who has gone to college knows, just signing up for classes or applying for student aid can be a confusing experience let alone when you have been out of the university atmosphere for a while, fighting in battle. Clackamas Community College knows that. That is why it created a Veterans Education and Training--VET--Center to serve as a one-stop shop for students who are veterans. The VET Center's staff knows the ins and outs of veterans' education benefits, financial aid and every other veterans' resource and program.

The VET Center is also there for student veterans who have a hard time adjusting to being back in school after they have been deployed. The center serves as a safe haven for the veterans to talk things out and get help with problems only another veteran can understand. A veterans' club regularly meets at the VET Center to provide support and camaraderie for the folks they see as family--other vets.

Clackamas Community College also pays the VET Center staff to train college staff and faculty about issues that confront student veterans so they are ready when called upon to help. This helps create a tremendously supportive environment campuswide.

Through the VET Center, Clackamas Community College works to eliminate obstacles in the admissions process while making every effort to help veterans earn education credit for their military service and experience.

Clackamas Community College also recently joined with the Army Reserves to open an Army Strong Community Center--ASCC--on campus. This center, which connects military members and their families with support resources in the community, is the first ASCC west of the Mississippi River.

But Clackamas Community College does even more. As a leader in its community, it continues its veterans' outreach outside the campus boundaries. When nearly 1,500 Oregon National Guard soldiers were deployed to Iraq, the college sponsored two Oregon National Guard family reunions to support the families of deployed 41st Brigade soldiers. The college also hosted two yellow-ribbon reintegration events that touched the lives of more than 3,800 soldiers and their families.

When the college hosted a veterans job fair last year, they went above and beyond the call of duty to host the largest single veterans' job fair in the State. The college found room for 104 employers that were eager to hire veterans, 106 veterans' services providers and more than 3,100 veterans. The logistics were incredible, and they handled them with ease, even providing lunch and entertainment for the veterans' families while the veterans job-hunted.

In recognition of their ongoing efforts, Clackamas Community College was one of 20 colleges and universities to receive a $100,000 grant to serve military veterans from the Wal-Mart Foundation and the American Council on Education. Clackamas Community College used the funds to further their efforts to help veterans transition from military service to college.

As an Oregonian and as their Senator, I could not be more proud of Clackamas Community College, its president, Joanne Truesdell, and the heroes they serve. Our citizen soldiers answer the call of our country every day, and Clackamas Community College returns the favor when they come home. It is my honor to thank them for their support of Oregon's veterans.

Madam President, I want to take a quick minute or two to talk about an amendment that will be called up later in the afternoon on my behalf to expand and improve the unmanned aerial systems--known as UAS programs--that are part of the Federal Aviation Administration reauthorization bill. My amendment is No. 27.

I thank Chairman Rockefeller and his staff because they have worked closely with me on this and several other amendments.

Growth in the unmanned aerial systems sector of the aviation business has been extraordinary in the last few years. I think it is well known that these systems are proven critical to military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. But they also have tremendous potential in the civilian sector whether it is for firefighting, law enforcement, border control, search and rescue, or environmental monitoring.

Law enforcement uses for this technology would be especially helpful in rural areas like much of my home State of Oregon. Unfortunately, the FAA has not yet been able to come up with a real plan for how to integrate these unmanned aerial systems vehicles into our airspace. That is why I am pleased the Rockefeller bill before us includes requirements for the FAA to get to work on a plan in this area and to establish test sites for unmanned aerial systems research.

The bill, however, includes only four of these sites. I would like to see us be bolder, particularly in an area where I think there is so much opportunity for innovation, development, and job creation.

This amendment would expand the number of sites to 10, which would require the FAA to explore the most useful and safest way for unmanned aerial systems to be integrated into the airspace.

The amendment would require at least one of these test sites to investigate how unmanned aerial systems can be useful in monitoring public land. As the chairman of the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests, I have heard repeatedly from law enforcement officials that remote public lands are too often being used as a place for criminals to grow drugs without detection. The Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service, two agencies that work in this field, simply don't have the resources to use expensive helicopters and do all the necessary work to root out these illegal operations.

I will conclude by saying that I believe unmanned aerial systems could be a cost-saving way to address this problem. By getting the ball rolling with my amendment, I believe it will be possible to more significantly fight these reprehensible drug operations that are taking place on public lands.

I hope this amendment, No. 27, will be accepted as part of the Rockefeller legislation, and I look forward to working with the bill's managers to encourage the development in this sector, which I think is right at the heart of what we need to do to promote innovation in the aviation field. I thank Chairman Rockefeller.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce two bills that will provide two important communities in rural Oregon with the means to promote their cultural history and their economic development opportunities. These are bills that I introduced in the last Congress and were reported out of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, but were unfortunately not passed in the Senate. I am pleased to be joined by Senator Merkley in this effort.

These bills both are intended to help leaders in rural communities in my State continue to grow their economies and make the most of the abundant resources surrounding their communities. As in many rural communities in my State and in many places in the Western United States, not much happens without the Federal Government's involvement. In fact, the Federal Government owns much of the land surrounding these small communities. While many of these lands are treasures, this high percentage of Federal land ownership sometimes limits the ability of local governments and civic leaders to solve problems and serve the public. I firmly believe the Federal Government can and should be an active partner in strengthening communities and improving a region's quality of life.

That is why I am re-introducing these two pieces of legislation today. These bills--both passed out of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee in the last Congress with minor modifications-- demonstrate the possibilities that can come when the Federal Government partners with proactive, innovative communities to tackle challenging economic conditions and the pattern of Federal land ownership.

My first bill, the La Pine Land Conveyance Act, would convey two parcels of property to Deschutes County, Oregon and a third parcel to the City of La Pine. The bill directs the transfer of Bureau of Land Management, BLM, lands to Deschutes County and the City of La Pine to enable the small town of La Pine to develop rodeo and equestrian facilities, expand a sewage treatment site, and develop the library or other public facilities.

La Pine has a set of unique challenges but the town's incorporation has brought a feeling in the community that good things can happen if they work together to make their town as good as it can possibly be.

My bill proposes the transfer of 150 acres of BLM land contiguous to the La Pine city limit to enable construction of public equestrian and rodeo facilities that have become increasingly important in La Pine. In addition, the land will provide a location for development of ball fields, parks, and recreation facilities, which can be developed as the town grows and budgets allow.

My bill also directs the transfer of approximately 750 acres of BLM lands to Deschutes County for the purpose of expanding the town's wastewater treatment operation. For several years this has been the City's top priority for a land transfer under the Recreation and Public Purposes Act. Although the BLM began an administrative transfer it was not completed, limiting this small community's ability to be competitive for state and federal economic stimulus funds. This project is too important to let languish.

Perhaps the most important issue affecting water quality in Deschutes County involves the threat to groundwater and the Deschutes River from household septic systems in southern Deschutes County, the region around La Pine. This project directly reduces nitrate loading into south county groundwater in two ways. First, by enabling expansion of the District service boundary to residential areas where septic systems are generating elevated groundwater nitrate levels; and second, by closing the current location for spreading treated effluent, over a relatively high groundwater area, to this new location which is judged not to threaten groundwater. That is why I am introducing legislation today to make sure this transfer moves forward.

The third parcel that would be transferred under this legislation would convey approximately 10 acres to the City of La Pine. This is a parcel right in the heart of downtown La Pine. The City is exploring its use for expansion of library space or using it as an open space.

My second bill, S. 271, the Wallowa Forest Service Compound Conveyance Act would convey an old Forest Service Ranger Station compound to the City of Wallowa, OR. In Wallowa County, this Forest Service compound was built by the Civilian Conservation Corps in the 1930's. For many years it was the center of town and this site continues to represent the natural and cultural history of one of Eastern Oregon's most beautiful communities. The City of Wallowa, along with County Commissioners, the local arts organizations, and a broad group of community leaders intend to restore this important example of Pacific Northwest rustic architecture and tribute to bygone times, making a valuable community interpretive center at this site. The conveyance of this property will allow the community to move forward with this project. The community worked hard to list the Ranger Station on the National Register of Historic Places, and ownership by the City will allow this coalition to restore the buildings and again develop a vibrant community center. Oregon Public Broadcasting aired a segment depicting an early 20th century railroad logging community--a significant part of the rich and diverse history and traditions that will be preserved and celebrated as this Forest Service Compound is developed as an interpretive center.

I want to express my thanks to all the citizens and community leaders who have worked to build their communities and develop these projects. They represent the pioneering spirit and vision that defines my State.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce two bills that will provide two important communities in rural Oregon with the means to promote their cultural history and their economic development opportunities. These are bills that I introduced in the last Congress and were reported out of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, but were unfortunately not passed in the Senate. I am pleased to be joined by Senator Merkley in this effort.

These bills both are intended to help leaders in rural communities in my State continue to grow their economies and make the most of the abundant resources surrounding their communities. As in many rural communities in my State and in many places in the Western United States, not much happens without the Federal Government's involvement. In fact, the Federal Government owns much of the land surrounding these small communities. While many of these lands are treasures, this high percentage of Federal land ownership sometimes limits the ability of local governments and civic leaders to solve problems and serve the public. I firmly believe the Federal Government can and should be an active partner in strengthening communities and improving a region's quality of life.

That is why I am re-introducing these two pieces of legislation today. These bills--both passed out of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee in the last Congress with minor modifications-- demonstrate the possibilities that can come when the Federal Government partners with proactive, innovative communities to tackle challenging economic conditions and the pattern of Federal land ownership.

My first bill, the La Pine Land Conveyance Act, would convey two parcels of property to Deschutes County, Oregon and a third parcel to the City of La Pine. The bill directs the transfer of Bureau of Land Management, BLM, lands to Deschutes County and the City of La Pine to enable the small town of La Pine to develop rodeo and equestrian facilities, expand a sewage treatment site, and develop the library or other public facilities.

La Pine has a set of unique challenges but the town's incorporation has brought a feeling in the community that good things can happen if they work together to make their town as good as it can possibly be.

My bill proposes the transfer of 150 acres of BLM land contiguous to the La Pine city limit to enable construction of public equestrian and rodeo facilities that have become increasingly important in La Pine. In addition, the land will provide a location for development of ball fields, parks, and recreation facilities, which can be developed as the town grows and budgets allow.

My bill also directs the transfer of approximately 750 acres of BLM lands to Deschutes County for the purpose of expanding the town's wastewater treatment operation. For several years this has been the City's top priority for a land transfer under the Recreation and Public Purposes Act. Although the BLM began an administrative transfer it was not completed, limiting this small community's ability to be competitive for state and federal economic stimulus funds. This project is too important to let languish.

Perhaps the most important issue affecting water quality in Deschutes County involves the threat to groundwater and the Deschutes River from household septic systems in southern Deschutes County, the region around La Pine. This project directly reduces nitrate loading into south county groundwater in two ways. First, by enabling expansion of the District service boundary to residential areas where septic systems are generating elevated groundwater nitrate levels; and second, by closing the current location for spreading treated effluent, over a relatively high groundwater area, to this new location which is judged not to threaten groundwater. That is why I am introducing legislation today to make sure this transfer moves forward.

The third parcel that would be transferred under this legislation would convey approximately 10 acres to the City of La Pine. This is a parcel right in the heart of downtown La Pine. The City is exploring its use for expansion of library space or using it as an open space.

My second bill, S. 271, the Wallowa Forest Service Compound Conveyance Act would convey an old Forest Service Ranger Station compound to the City of Wallowa, OR. In Wallowa County, this Forest Service compound was built by the Civilian Conservation Corps in the 1930's. For many years it was the center of town and this site continues to represent the natural and cultural history of one of Eastern Oregon's most beautiful communities. The City of Wallowa, along with County Commissioners, the local arts organizations, and a broad group of community leaders intend to restore this important example of Pacific Northwest rustic architecture and tribute to bygone times, making a valuable community interpretive center at this site. The conveyance of this property will allow the community to move forward with this project. The community worked hard to list the Ranger Station on the National Register of Historic Places, and ownership by the City will allow this coalition to restore the buildings and again develop a vibrant community center. Oregon Public Broadcasting aired a segment depicting an early 20th century railroad logging community--a significant part of the rich and diverse history and traditions that will be preserved and celebrated as this Forest Service Compound is developed as an interpretive center.

I want to express my thanks to all the citizens and community leaders who have worked to build their communities and develop these projects. They represent the pioneering spirit and vision that defines my State.

Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce the Empowering States to Innovate Act with my colleagues, Senators Scott Brown and Mary Landrieu.

At a time when we are looking for ways to bring this country together to deal with the most contentious issues of our time, we ought to be supporting innovation. We ought to be supporting unleashing creative kinds of approaches to deal with domestic issues. That is the foundation of this legislation.

What Senators Brown, Landrieu and I are seeking to do is to show it is possible on a significant issue--I think we all understand health care is about as important as it gets--that we can come together, and facilitate this kind of innovation. It is pretty clear that what works in Springfield, OR, may not be exactly ideal for Springfield, MA. But what we can do is come up with a way to provide more flexibility and particularly more choice and more competition for our States and other States around the country.

If we can just move away from a Federal cookie-cutter approach and encourage the kind of creative thinking we have seen in Oregon and in Massachusetts and other parts of the country, I think we will be well served and will be in a position to better contain health care costs. I think we all understand that how to rein in these medical costs that are gobbling up everything in sight is first and foremost on the minds of our constituents.

The Empowering States to Innovate Act encourages additional innovative approaches in States, approaches that are tailored to the needs of States' own residents, that will help us, in my view, to promote choice and competition in the American health care system. As long as they meet certain requirements as far as coverage and affordability are met, the States are free to do whatever they choose. I just offer up my own judgment that right now, at a time when most Americans still don't get much choice in their health care coverage, this is an ideal opportunity that both Democrats and Republicans can support. As States seek to go forward with this approach, they can make their own choices.

In particular, what I have been concerned about, after talking to health policymakers over the last few months, is if, in the State of New York, for example, you go out and set up a process to comply with the legislation for purposes of 2014 and you see that the waiver, as now constituted under 1332, starts in 2017, you say: How am I going to reconcile those two? Am I going to set up one approach for 2014 and then do another approach in 2017? It is going to put us through a lot of bureaucratic water torture to try to figure out how to synchronize those two dates. So it only makes sense to speed it all up and make it possible for everybody to get started in 2014.

We have outlined the two key changes in the legislation that is law today. The first change is to make the waivers effective in 2014 rather than in 2017 so States only have to change their systems once. The second thing the Empowering States to Innovate Act does is it requires the Department of Health and Human Services to begin to review State waiver applications within 6 months of enactment of the legislation. This would allow States early notification of whether their State waivers have been approved and would give them adequate time to roll out their State-specific plans. I think this, too, will help us create more competition, more choice, and more affordability in American health care because it will give the States adequate time to gear up. That is the philosophy behind the Empowering States to Innovate Act, whether one likes one particular approach or another. Clearly, there will be great diversity of approaches tried at the State level.

This legislation offers an opportunity for States to engage in a ``race to the top'' for what will deliver the best health care choices and options to their constituents. This provides a chance for States to do it better. I look forward to working with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to give States that chance.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce the Empowering States to Innovate Act with my colleagues, Senators Scott Brown and Mary Landrieu.

At a time when we are looking for ways to bring this country together to deal with the most contentious issues of our time, we ought to be supporting innovation. We ought to be supporting unleashing creative kinds of approaches to deal with domestic issues. That is the foundation of this legislation.

What Senators Brown, Landrieu and I are seeking to do is to show it is possible on a significant issue--I think we all understand health care is about as important as it gets--that we can come together, and facilitate this kind of innovation. It is pretty clear that what works in Springfield, OR, may not be exactly ideal for Springfield, MA. But what we can do is come up with a way to provide more flexibility and particularly more choice and more competition for our States and other States around the country.

If we can just move away from a Federal cookie-cutter approach and encourage the kind of creative thinking we have seen in Oregon and in Massachusetts and other parts of the country, I think we will be well served and will be in a position to better contain health care costs. I think we all understand that how to rein in these medical costs that are gobbling up everything in sight is first and foremost on the minds of our constituents.

The Empowering States to Innovate Act encourages additional innovative approaches in States, approaches that are tailored to the needs of States' own residents, that will help us, in my view, to promote choice and competition in the American health care system. As long as they meet certain requirements as far as coverage and affordability are met, the States are free to do whatever they choose. I just offer up my own judgment that right now, at a time when most Americans still don't get much choice in their health care coverage, this is an ideal opportunity that both Democrats and Republicans can support. As States seek to go forward with this approach, they can make their own choices.

In particular, what I have been concerned about, after talking to health policymakers over the last few months, is if, in the State of New York, for example, you go out and set up a process to comply with the legislation for purposes of 2014 and you see that the waiver, as now constituted under 1332, starts in 2017, you say: How am I going to reconcile those two? Am I going to set up one approach for 2014 and then do another approach in 2017? It is going to put us through a lot of bureaucratic water torture to try to figure out how to synchronize those two dates. So it only makes sense to speed it all up and make it possible for everybody to get started in 2014.

We have outlined the two key changes in the legislation that is law today. The first change is to make the waivers effective in 2014 rather than in 2017 so States only have to change their systems once. The second thing the Empowering States to Innovate Act does is it requires the Department of Health and Human Services to begin to review State waiver applications within 6 months of enactment of the legislation. This would allow States early notification of whether their State waivers have been approved and would give them adequate time to roll out their State-specific plans. I think this, too, will help us create more competition, more choice, and more affordability in American health care because it will give the States adequate time to gear up. That is the philosophy behind the Empowering States to Innovate Act, whether one likes one particular approach or another. Clearly, there will be great diversity of approaches tried at the State level.

This legislation offers an opportunity for States to engage in a ``race to the top'' for what will deliver the best health care choices and options to their constituents. This provides a chance for States to do it better. I look forward to working with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to give States that chance.

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

Mr. President, I call up S. Res. 28, the Wyden-Grassley- McCaskill resolution to end secret holds.

Mr. President, with the passage of this resolution, no longer will it be possible for a Senator to engage in the unconscionable practice of secretly blocking a piece of legislation that affects millions and millions of Americans.

The fight for more sunshine in the way the Senate does business feels like it has been the longest running battle since the Trojan War. Today, after scores of battles, the cause of open government is going to prevail.

Over the years, Senator Grassley and I, with the strong support of Senator McCaskill, have been able to secure leadership agreements to end secrecy. We have been able to pass amendments to end secrecy and send them to conference committees--where they would then magically disappear. We actually, at one time, got a watered-down version of our law passed. In each case, the defenders of secrecy have found a way to keep sunshine out and obstruct the public interest. When this proposal passes, we believe there will be real change.

There are three reasons why we believe our bipartisan proposal to end secret holds will be different from previous approaches.

First, now with any hold here in the Senate, there would be a public owner. Every single hold would have a Senator who is going to be held accountable for blocking a piece of legislation.

Second, there will be consequences. In the past, there have never been any consequences for the Senator who objected anonymously. In fact, the individuals who objected would usually send somebody else out to do their objecting for them, and they would be completely anonymous. Essentially, the person who would be doing the objecting would sort of say: I am not involved here. I am doing it for somebody else. So the entire Senate lacked transparency with respect to who was actually responsible.

Third, the Wyden-Grassley-McCaskill proposal would deal with all holds, whether they reach the point of an objection on the floor or are objected to when the bill or nomination is hotlined. Our approach requires objections to a hotline be publicly disclosed, even for bills or nominations that never get called up on the floor. This is a particularly important provision.

Senator Grassley and Senator McCaskill feel very strongly about this as well because most holds never reach the point that there is an objection on the floor, and that is something I think has been lacking in this debate. They hear about discussions of people objecting on the floor. Most holds never reach that point. Typically, what happens is, a Senator who objects to a bill or nomination tells the Senator's leader that the matter should not be allowed to come up for a vote, and then the leader objects to bringing up the bill when it is hotlined. Because of that objection, the bill or nomination never actually gets called up on the floor. That type of hold effectively kills the bill or nomination long before it gets to the point of an objection on the floor. So we want to make it clear this is an important distinction and, for the first time, we would not just be talking about objections that are made on the floor.

I see my friend and colleague, Senator McCaskill, who has crusaded relentlessly for this. Senator Grassley and I--I say to Senator McCaskill we sort of feel like we have been at it as part of the longest running battle since the Trojan War. I say to the Senator, your energy has been absolutely crucial in this fight.

I would also point out--and I think we know--the defenders of secrecy will always try to find a way around anything that passes. We think we have plugged the holes. We think we finally made the crucial differences. But the fact that the Senator has been such a relentless watchdog for the public interest, an opponent of secrecy, has been a tremendous contribution. I thank my colleague from Missouri and welcome her remarks.

Mr. President, I thank our colleague, our invaluable ally in this fight.

Senator Grassley, I believe, is on his way. But the Senator from Tennessee has had many discussions on this topic with me and other Senators, and I wish to thank him for all the time and effort he has put into it. I yield him whatever time he would like.

Mr. President, while we wait for Senator Grassley, who, as Senator Alexander has mentioned, has been relentlessly pursuing this with us for years--again and again, Senator Grassley would come to the floor and make the point that a Senator simply ought to have the guts, just ought to have the guts, to stand and say: Look, this is important to me. I am the individual who ought to be held accountable. Senator Grassley, in that inimitable Midwestern way, always manages to get these issues down to what they are truly all about. It is about accountability and, as Senator Grassley says, it is about guts.

I would also mention, what is striking about the secret hold is this astounding power. I think it is only fair to describe it that way. I know of few powers that an elected official has that resemble the ability to anonymously block a bill or a nomination that affects millions of people. It is an astounding power, and for years and years it has never been written down anywhere.

As part of the ethics legislation that was passed a few years ago, we were able to get a watered-down version of secret holds reform in there. But literally to think that a power such as this--so sweeping, almost unrivaled in terms of the powers an elected official has--could be exercised in secret is something worth reflecting about in and of itself.

I will also tell colleagues that for those who want to get into the history of this, there are all kinds of holds. There was the revolving hold. There were a number of different ones. But my favorite over time was the ``Mae West'' hold, which came to also be known as the ``come look me over'' hold, which was almost as if a Senator was declaring that they were not sure what they wanted to do with their hold, but somebody ought to come up and see them sometime.

It just goes to show you, these kinds of practices--and this is what has been good about the work done by Senator Schumer and Senator Alexander, my friend and colleague from Oregon, Senator Merkley, and Senator Udall, which has been so important--because, for the first time, they have brought out into real debate what these rules are all about. My hope is, this will just be the beginning of the discussion about how, in the days ahead, it will be possible to bring more sunshine and more transparency to the Senate.

But Senator Grassley, who has made this point in the past about doing business in public--that the principle at stake is accountability and transparency--has made the case for a long time and has additionally told Senators that since he--and there have been a number of us who have always put our holds in the Congressional Record; I have not used them very often. Senator Grassley has made the point that colleagues will find, when they do it, it does not hurt at all. In fact, not only do they not suffer any detrimental consequences, but they do it and the public thinks more of them.

One final point as we wait for Senator Grassley is that I am particularly interested in having holds reform enacted as part of our work today because the secret hold is a huge bonanza for the lobbyists. The lobbyists can, as we have seen year after year, go to a Senator and say: It would be a big favor to me if you would put a hold on something so we can get a little more time to have a chance to make our case. Sometimes we have competing lobbyists asking for secret holds, so we have one Senator putting a secret hold on a piece of legislation and making a whole array of lobbyists happy. Sunshine will be good for the Senate, and it will certainly be good because it will shine the hot light on some of these lobbyists' practices that we have been trying to discourage here on the floor of the Senate.

I have just been notified that Senator Grassley is unavoidably detained. He is not going to make it to the floor at this time.

On behalf of myself, Senator Grassley, and Senator McCaskill, at this time I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, as Senator Grassley has said, Senator Grassley, Senator McCaskill, and I have always maintained that there is no legitimate reason for Senators to keep holds they have placed with their leaders secret for any period of time. In fact, for quite some time, we have made a practice of immediately disclosing any hold we place in the Congressional Record, and that has been at the heart of our resolution, in my judgment. Would my friend from Iowa agree?

I thank the Senator because I think that is an important point because the bipartisan resolution clearly establishes the responsibility of all Senators to go public with their holds and the understanding that the leaders will not honor secret holds.

In addition, a concern that has been expressed is the lack of an enforcement mechanism in case there is a breakdown in this process, that it does not work as intended. Will the Senator from Iowa address that point? I believe our resolution addresses that concern as well.

I thank the Senator from Iowa, because with this colloquy he has laid it out very well. The fact is we have been at this so that it sometimes feels as though it has been the longest running battle since the Trojan War, given the fact we have had leadership agreements, we have had amendments, and we have had a watered-down version of the law. Today, we finally have an opportunity to ensure this unconscionable practice of secrecy that keeps the American people, millions of Americans, from learning about who is blocking a bill or a nomination, and that practice is finally eliminated, and I thank my colleague. It has been a long fight and a pleasure to work with my friend from Iowa and to have the energy and enthusiasm of Senator McCaskill, who has given this cause a huge push.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Merkley as a cosponsor to the bipartisan Senate resolution eliminating secret holds.

I appreciate the hard work of the leadership and my partners in this effort, Senator Grassley and Senator McCaskill. We would not be here today without them. We have a strong, bipartisan bill that will bring greater transparency to the process of holds.

There are a few matters that we wanted to clarify to ensure there is no confusion during the implementation. First, subsection (d) notes that when a Senator makes an objection, but within 2 session days, no Senator submits a Notice of Intent to Object to the Record, then the clerk should add to the Notice of Intent to Object calendar the name of the Senator who actually made the objection. Obviously, the calendar should also note the name of the matter actually objected to, as well as the date that the objection was made on the floor. Is that my colleague's understanding, as well?

Yes, the Senator from Iowa makes a good point. Our resolution turns the Notice of Intent to Object calendar into a one- stop shop for recording information about objections made to covered requests. At the same time, some have asked us--what happens if a matter that had been objected to later passes? Shouldn't the clerk just remove the relevant information from the Notice of Intent to Object calendar in that situation? It seems to me that makes sense and such action by the clerk would be keeping with the intent of our resolution.

That seems like a commonsense approach to me. I thank my colleague for his help on secret holds. We are achieving a big victory for transparency at the beginning of this Congress.

Madam President, there has been much discussion about the proposed rules reforms and how far they go. To those who say that this resolution doesn't go far enough, I ask, why have the friends of secrecy fought so hard for so long to allow Senators to anonymously block legislation and nominations?

The fact is this resolution deals with a sweeping, almost unparalleled legislative power--the ability of one Senator to anonymously block a bill or a nomination from going forward. That is not right. Senator Grassley, Senator McCaskill, and I have worked with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to say that if you want to exercise that extraordinary power, you ought to do it in the sunlight. There ought to be public disclosure. There ought to be transparency.

I yield the remainder of our time to Senator Grassley, who has championed this cause along with Senator McCaskill.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce critical forest legislation for my home State of Oregon.

This is legislation that I introduced in the last Congress. Unfortunately, despite making significant progress and gaining the support of the administration, my legislation did not get passed before Congress adjourned. But the need remains as great as ever and it remains one of the top priorities for my State. So today, early in this new Congress, I am reintroducing the bill and sending the message that this urgent priority needs to get done.

I am pleased that my colleague from Oregon, Senator Merkley, has joined me today in introducing this bill. Like me, he recognizes the severe needs in our forests and in the forest dependent communities.

For too many decades, Oregon has been at war with itself over the fate of its forests. Nowhere has the negative impact of this battle been greater than in Oregon's eastside forests.

Over-logging and disastrous fire suppression policies of the past gave way over time to excessive litigation and gridlock.

That excessive litigation and gridlock has resulted in millions of acres of Oregon's Federal forest landscape containing choked, overstocked stands that are at great risk of uncharacteristic catastrophic fires, insect infestations and disease.

Controversial logging that holds the industry and the environment hostage to competing ideologies serves no one's interest. The focus should be on areas that everyone agrees desperately need management: to thin and restore our forests and watersheds, and to reduce hazardous fuels putting our forests at risk.

That is why I introduced legislation in the last Congress to begin to tackle the challenges facing Oregon's Eastside forests.

Leaders on both sides of these difficult issues came together with me after intense negotiations to bring peace, jobs, and a healthier tomorrow to the 8.3 million acres on the 6 Federal forests in eastern and central Oregon.

Those leaders realized that each side had armed itself politically enough to survive, but not enough to succeed.

With each passing month and each attempted timber sale and threatened lawsuit, our inability to take action, our inability to address the needs of Oregon's declining forests means that they are growing more at risk of preventable fire and disease.

Leaders on both sides of this issue realized that unless something fundamental changes, Oregon's Federal forest landscape, with millions of acres of choked, at-risk forest in desperate need of management, millions of acres of old growth, species habitat, and watersheds face an uncertain future.

Timber executives came together with leaders of the Oregon environmental community to take shared responsibility for saving our endangered forests, following months of intense negotiations to reach an agreement on legislation.

Since my bill was introduced in the last Congress, there have been continuing discussions and negotiations as my stakeholders and I have worked with the Administration and the Energy and Natural Resources Committee to get the bill ready for passage in the Senate. Today's bill reflects some of those changes, but it preserves the core elements of the agreement that I crafted with the stakeholders to this agreement--a push to increase the timber produced from our national forests, landscape scale restoration efforts and protections for watersheds and old growth.

Today in eastern Oregon we are down to only a small handful of surviving mills. Without far greater certainty of supply and an immediate increase in merchantable timber, more mills will close.

If that happens, our Eastside forests will pay the price.

Without mills to process saw logs and other merchantable material from forest restoration projects, there will be no restoration of our Eastside forests.

Fortunately leaders on both sides of this issue recognize that and that is why they set aside their differences to forge an agreement.

Job One must be saving the remaining infrastructure of forestry-- Oregon's mills and its timber workers--in central and eastern Oregon while preserving our old growth and watersheds.

My stakeholders and I worked very hard on the agreement and to advance this legislation. As I predicted, we have already seen our share of challenges. But I have great faith that we will stand firm to see this legislation implemented.

I am not going to let Congressional gridlock stop the historic progress that has been made on forestry issues in Oregon. This issue is simply too important.

I also want to point out that none of our efforts will succeed unless Oregon Federal forests are also adequately funded to properly manage and restore these valuable Federal assets.

Together, as a team, we will fight for the funding to put our people back to work and restore the health of our forests.

I want to thank my stakeholders for their support and tireless work in crafting this agreement and ultimately in working with me through the legislative process.

I am proud to introduce this legislation today, and I am going to keep working with all the folks in my State who are willing to talk in good faith about restoring our eastside forests.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce critical forest legislation for my home State of Oregon.

This is legislation that I introduced in the last Congress. Unfortunately, despite making significant progress and gaining the support of the administration, my legislation did not get passed before Congress adjourned. But the need remains as great as ever and it remains one of the top priorities for my State. So today, early in this new Congress, I am reintroducing the bill and sending the message that this urgent priority needs to get done.

I am pleased that my colleague from Oregon, Senator Merkley, has joined me today in introducing this bill. Like me, he recognizes the severe needs in our forests and in the forest dependent communities.

For too many decades, Oregon has been at war with itself over the fate of its forests. Nowhere has the negative impact of this battle been greater than in Oregon's eastside forests.

Over-logging and disastrous fire suppression policies of the past gave way over time to excessive litigation and gridlock.

That excessive litigation and gridlock has resulted in millions of acres of Oregon's Federal forest landscape containing choked, overstocked stands that are at great risk of uncharacteristic catastrophic fires, insect infestations and disease.

Controversial logging that holds the industry and the environment hostage to competing ideologies serves no one's interest. The focus should be on areas that everyone agrees desperately need management: to thin and restore our forests and watersheds, and to reduce hazardous fuels putting our forests at risk.

That is why I introduced legislation in the last Congress to begin to tackle the challenges facing Oregon's Eastside forests.

Leaders on both sides of these difficult issues came together with me after intense negotiations to bring peace, jobs, and a healthier tomorrow to the 8.3 million acres on the 6 Federal forests in eastern and central Oregon.

Those leaders realized that each side had armed itself politically enough to survive, but not enough to succeed.

With each passing month and each attempted timber sale and threatened lawsuit, our inability to take action, our inability to address the needs of Oregon's declining forests means that they are growing more at risk of preventable fire and disease.

Leaders on both sides of this issue realized that unless something fundamental changes, Oregon's Federal forest landscape, with millions of acres of choked, at-risk forest in desperate need of management, millions of acres of old growth, species habitat, and watersheds face an uncertain future.

Timber executives came together with leaders of the Oregon environmental community to take shared responsibility for saving our endangered forests, following months of intense negotiations to reach an agreement on legislation.

Since my bill was introduced in the last Congress, there have been continuing discussions and negotiations as my stakeholders and I have worked with the Administration and the Energy and Natural Resources Committee to get the bill ready for passage in the Senate. Today's bill reflects some of those changes, but it preserves the core elements of the agreement that I crafted with the stakeholders to this agreement--a push to increase the timber produced from our national forests, landscape scale restoration efforts and protections for watersheds and old growth.

Today in eastern Oregon we are down to only a small handful of surviving mills. Without far greater certainty of supply and an immediate increase in merchantable timber, more mills will close.

If that happens, our Eastside forests will pay the price.

Without mills to process saw logs and other merchantable material from forest restoration projects, there will be no restoration of our Eastside forests.

Fortunately leaders on both sides of this issue recognize that and that is why they set aside their differences to forge an agreement.

Job One must be saving the remaining infrastructure of forestry-- Oregon's mills and its timber workers--in central and eastern Oregon while preserving our old growth and watersheds.

My stakeholders and I worked very hard on the agreement and to advance this legislation. As I predicted, we have already seen our share of challenges. But I have great faith that we will stand firm to see this legislation implemented.

I am not going to let Congressional gridlock stop the historic progress that has been made on forestry issues in Oregon. This issue is simply too important.

I also want to point out that none of our efforts will succeed unless Oregon Federal forests are also adequately funded to properly manage and restore these valuable Federal assets.

Together, as a team, we will fight for the funding to put our people back to work and restore the health of our forests.

I want to thank my stakeholders for their support and tireless work in crafting this agreement and ultimately in working with me through the legislative process.

I am proud to introduce this legislation today, and I am going to keep working with all the folks in my State who are willing to talk in good faith about restoring our eastside forests.

(for himself, Mr. Grassley, Mrs. McCaskill, Mr. Brown of Ohio, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Inhofe, Mrs. Murray, Mrs. Shaheen, Mr. Udall of Colorado, Mr. Whitehouse, Ms. Klobuchar, Ms. Collins, Mr. Durbin, Mrs. Gillibrand, Mr. Tester, Mr. Johanns, Mr. Merkley, Mr. Begich, and Mr. Manchin) submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to:

S. Res. 28

Resolved,

Mr. President, tonight's State of the Union Address is a unique opportunity for the President to speak directly to the American people and offer his course for the country. The President is promoting trade as part of his agenda and I commend him for highlighting global competitiveness as an economic imperative. With the upcoming debate on the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement, the President has an opportunity to speak candidly with the American people about the benefits and challenges posed by trade. Doing this supports the case that the United States needs new policies to rise to the challenges of a global economy.

In order to avoid a divisive, ugly fight over trade, I would like to hear the President say in his speech that he will seek to establish a new compact between workers, business, and government about how to increase our competitiveness in the global economy. It is important to try to reach this consensus before Congress is asked to consider the controversial free-trade agreements, FTAs, reached with Korea, Colombia, and Panama.

The President has already begun down this path by ramping up efforts to combat unfair trade practices and establishing the National Export Initiative with the goal of doubling exports over the next 5 years. These are both important strategies. In approaching the pending FTAs, it is vital that he talk about more than just exports; he must also highlight the value of imports, two-way trade, and the

global supply chain. This can only be done through candid conversation, one the Nation richly deserves. If our debate draws only from the same talking points that both sides have been using for the last 20 years, the truth will be sidelined as proponents oversell the potential merits of the agreements and opponents oversell the potential pitfalls. That would be a disservice to the country and represent a profound missed opportunity for the President.

Take the pending trade agreement with Korea as an example. This is the most economically meaningful FTA since NAFTA. To help understand the impact of this agreement, I sought the help of the staff of the independent International Trade Commission, ITC. In 2007, the ITC found that the agreement would have a limited impact on job creation, partly because of the assumptions the ITC made in its analysis. Because the economic landscape in 2010 is profoundly different than it was in 2007, I asked staff of the ITC to provide an updated assessment of the agreement using conditions that reflect today's economic reality. Based on these updated results, the FTA has the potential to create about 280,000 new American jobs and boost U.S. economic output by $27 billion each year.

At the same time, these projections show that thousands of Americans currently employed in manufacturing could lose their jobs. Neither the President nor Congress can ignore these families, and it is our job to enlarge what I call the Winners' Circle to ensure that trade is a benefit to Americans in all our communities.

When American firms and their workers are as competitive as they can be, they can better tap foreign markets opened by trade agreements to spur the domestic economy and produce more good-paying jobs here at home. The Department of Labor's chief economist recently testified that jobs related to international trade typically pay more and offer better benefits. However, when I talk with leading CEOs and labor economists, I hear the same concern: If we want our economy to grow at its full potential, we need more workers with the tools to compete.

In tonight's speech I would like to hear the President talk about proposals that will guarantee workers' career-long, affordable access to continuing education and skills upgrading so that businesses always have the most productive and trained workforce they need. We expand the Winners' Circle by making it easier for workers to move from one job or career to the next and by making America the most attractive place to work and live for anyone who has the skills, the brains, and the ambition to succeed. Making it easier for companies with obsolete technology to retool to meet 21st-century global competition further expands the Winner's Circle. This means a tax system that rewards the global growth of American firms while fostering investment in production and employment here at home.

In the coming months, President Obama has an opportunity to forge a new, bipartisan consensus about trade and increasing foreign competitiveness. If he succeeds at this, not only does he succeed in passing these trade agreements but, far more importantly, he equips Americas workers and businesses to drive the economy forward.

Madam President, Senator Udall and Senator Merkley have waited at great length to make their remarks. I wish to propound a unanimous consent at this time. At this point, Senator Udall would be the next speaker. There would be a Republican who would speak next. I am very hopeful it will be Senator Grassley because he and I have been partners for almost 14 years in this effort to force the Senate to do public business in public and get rid of these secret holds. So after Senator Udall, there would be Senator Grassley. After Senator Grassley, there would be my friend and colleague Senator Merkley who would speak. At that time there would be a Republican who would be next in the queue to speak.

So my unanimous consent request at that point is--I would like to be able, for up to 30 minutes, to have the bipartisan sponsors of the effort to get rid of secret holds once and for all, including the distinguished Presiding Officer, to have up to 30 minutes for a colloquy on this bipartisan effort to eliminate secret holds.

Then, after Senator Merkley, there would be another Republican who would be in a position to speak for 15 minutes, and at that point under the unanimous consent request we would be able to discuss this bipartisan effort to eliminate secret holds for up to 30 minutes.

I am very open to that. I think it is an excellent suggestion.

Madam President, I think Senator Harkin has made an excellent suggestion. Unless Senator Alexander or anyone on the other side has a problem with that, let's modify the unanimous consent request I have made to incorporate Senator Harkin's suggestion.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of the bipartisan Wyden- Grassley-McCaskill-Collins resolution to end secret holds, which is at the desk.

Madam President, before he leaves the floor, let me thank Senator Alexander for the discussions he has had with me on this issue. Senator McConnell has also spoken with me about this. I wish we were getting this done today, largely because this would give us a chance on the first day of the Senate's new session to send a message that once and for all we were deep-sixing secrecy, that we were saying public business ought to be done in public. I wish it were being done today but I understand completely the sentiments of the Senator from Tennessee and the fact that he is willing to work with me is something I appreciate.

As I have indicated, there are obviously significant differences between the parties about how to reform the rules of the Senate. What I hope will be done--certainly the very first day that the Senate comes back and is in a position to formally act, which appears to be January 24--is once and for all we would bring Democrats and Republicans together around an extraordinarily important change in the Senate procedures that Senator Grassley and I have been trying to change for literally 15 years. Particularly with the energy and enthusiasm Senator McCaskill has brought to the cause, I think we are now on the cusp of being able to finally get this done.

It has been clear that if you walk up and down the Main Streets of this country, people do not know what a secret hold is. Probably a lot of people think it is a hair spray. The fact of the matter is there are practically more versions of secret holds in the Senate than there are in pro wrestling. But what a secret hold is really all about, it is one of the most extraordinary powers an individual Senator has here in the Senate and it can be exercised without any transparency and without any accountability whatsoever. What a secret hold is all about is one Senator can block the American people, the entire country, from learning about a piece of legislation that can involve billions of dollars, scores and scores of people, or a nomination with the ability to influence the lives of all Americans. One Senator can block that consideration without owning up to the fact that Senator is the one who is defying the public's right to know about how Senate business is blocked.

That is wrong. It is not about how Republicans see it, or Democrats see it, it is just common sense. Most people say, when you tell them that a Senator can block an enormously important piece of legislation or a nomination that affects millions of people and they can do it in secret, I can't believe you have those kinds of rules.

The fact is, that is the way the Senate operates. Suffice it to say it is getting worse. A few days ago, for example, Chief Justice Roberts said that the number of vacancies on our courts is creating a judicial emergency. Those are the words of Chief Justice Roberts.

At least 19 Federal judges have been approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously or near unanimously and never got a vote on the floor of the Senate. Not one Senator has publicly taken responsibility for worsening the judicial crisis that Chief Justice Roberts has been decrying over the last few days. Think about that. The Chief Justice of the United States during the Christmas holidays included in his annual report on the Judiciary that the delay in confirming federal judges is creating an emergency in the judicial system.

Chief Justice Roberts, in my view, is correct. I think we do have an emergency. We have been trying to get several judges in the State of Oregon approved, Senator Merkley and I have been working to get this done. But these nominees and others have been blocked and no Member of the Senate will publicly take responsibility for worsening this crisis that Chief Justice Roberts is appropriately so concerned about.

We have tried in the past with legislation to end secret holds. We actually got a law passed at one time to get rid of secret holds. We have tried with pledges from the leadership of both political parties. In every instance, the defenders of secrecy have found their way around the requirements and, in my view, the public interest.

I will make two points and then I want to allow Senator McCaskill to have a chance to address this issue. There are two points with respect to why this effort to end secret holds would be different. The first is that every hold here in the Senate, after the passage of this bipartisan resolution, would have a public owner. Every single hold would have a public owner. Second, there would be consequences. In the past, there have not been consequences for the individual who would object anonymously. In fact, the individual who would object would usually send someone else out to do their objecting for them and there would be complete anonymity for, essentially, all concerned because the person who would be objecting would be in effect saying this is not my doing, I am doing it for somebody else.

The heart of this bipartisan compromise is to make sure that every hold has a public owner and there would be consequences. There may be a Senator around here who becomes known as ``Senator Obstruction.'' Senator Obstruction is the one who is trying to block public business. Let him explain it to the American people.

I will have more to say about it in a little bit, and there is the possibility of other colleagues coming to speak. But Senator McCaskill has brought the kind of energy and passion to this that has made it possible for us to, as I say, be on the cusp of finally forcing, here in the Senate, public business to be done in public. I thank her for all her help and will allow her to take the time. She said she thought she might speak for around 10 minutes. Senator Klobuchar, who has also been a great and passionate advocate of open government, will also speak, and for colleagues who have an interest we have 30 minutes of time.

I say to Senator McCaskill, with appreciation for all she has done, the time is hers.

How much time remains on our side?

Madam President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Minnesota.

Mr. President, I do not see any of our colleagues who want to speak on the bipartisan efforts to end secret holds, so let me make a couple of comments in wrapping up.

The first is, Senator Grassley and I and others who have been at this for so long have been willing in the past to just put a statement in the Congressional Record when, in the handful of instances, we thought it was important to block a particular piece of legislation or a nomination. We felt it was important to be publicly accountable.

All we are asking is that principle of openness, transparency, and government in the sunshine apply to all Members of the Senate.

The fact is, secrecy has real consequences. I mentioned the fact that Chief Justice Roberts has been so concerned about the judicial emergency he has seen develop in the court system. I saw during the lameduck session, on a bipartisan bill Senator Cornyn and I spent many months on to combat sex trafficking, the consequences of a secret hold. When our bill passed the Senate, it went over to the House of Representatives, was passed in the House, and then came back to the Senate and was blocked secretly. And this was a bipartisan bill to allow us to strengthen the tools law enforcement would have in order to fight sex trafficking, to provide urgently needed shelters to sex trafficking victims. A bipartisan bill Senator Cornyn and I spent many months on did not become law during the lameduck session because of a secret hold.

A lot of Senators have seen exactly these kinds of problems with judges and U.S. attorney candidates. We had both from my home State, two judges who couldn't be considered because of a hold and we could not identify who was objecting, the same with the U.S. attorney nominee. These are the real consequences of secret holds.

The big winners in these secret holds are the lobbyists. The lobbyists benefit tremendously from secret holds. Practically every Senator has received requests from a lobbyist asking if the Senator would put a secret hold on a bill or a nomination in order to kill it without getting any public debate and without the lobbyist's fingerprints appearing anywhere. If you can get a Senator to go out and put an anonymous hold on a bill, you have then hit the lobbyist jackpot. No lobbyist can win more significantly than by getting a Senator to secretly object because the Senator is protected by the cloak of anonymity, but so is the lobbyist. With a secret hold, Senators can play both sides of the street. They can give a lobbyist a victory for their clients without alienating potential or future clients.

Given the number of instances where I have heard of lobbyists asking for secret holds, I wish to say that those who oppose our efforts to end secret holds are basically saying we ought to give lobbyists an extra tool, an extension of the tools they already have in order to advocate for their clients and defy public accountability.

We passed stricter ethics requirements with respect to lobbyists. But it looks to me to be the height of hypocrisy if the Senate adopts a variety of changes to curtail lobbying, as has been done in the past, and at the same time allows lobbyists to continue to benefit, as so many special interests have, from secret holds.

This is the opportunity, after a decade and a half, for the public to get a fair shake and for the public interest to come first. We have tried this in the past. We have tried this in the past with pledges and by passing a law and each time the supporters of secrecy found ways around it. But I think the public has caught on.

Suffice to say, there are going to be plenty of differences between Democrats and Republicans with respect to how to reform the rules of the Senate. What I think has come to light is, it doesn't pass the smell test to keep arguing that Senate business ought to be done in secret. The American people don't buy that anymore. They think this ought to be an open institution, a place where every Senator is held accountable.

This time it is going to be different. There are going to be public owners of any hold. There are going to be consequences for any Senator who tries to block a bill or a nomination in secret. This is going to be an important vote when we come back, a very important vote, and finally one that will require

that public business in the Senate be done in public.

I yield the floor.