Floor Statements

Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleague from Utah, Senator Orrin Hatch, in introducing legislation to renew an existing Federal program to provide tax incentives for the installation of equipment to refuel cars and trucks with alternative fuels including biodiesel, gasohol, electricity, compressed natural gas, propane, liquefied natural gas, and hydrogen.

The United States continues to import far more oil than we produce. Upwards of \2/3\ of the oil we use is imported from other countries, many of whom do not have Americans' best interests at heart, or worse. Similarly, \2/3\ of all of the oil used in the U.S. goes to power our cars, buses, and trucks. If the U.S. is going to reduce our dependence on imported oil, it is going to have to adopt alternative transportation technologies such as plug-in hybrid and all electric vehicles, fuel cells, and natural gas vehicles. Each of these alternative technologies has pluses and minuses in terms of their technical maturity, usefulness in different types of vehicles, cost, and the availability of refueling infrastructure to support them. This legislation only addresses the need for refueling and recharging infrastructure, but without a certainty that there will be places to refuel and recharge their alternative fueled vehicles Americans are not going to buy them. No one wants to run out of fuel while looking for a place to fill up.

This legislation extends an already existing tax credit, Sec. 30C of the Tax Code, which is intended to help defray the cost of installing new alternative refueling and recharging equipment. The current credit expires in a matter of a few months at the end of calendar year 2010. Given the critical need to cut our national appetite for imported oil, it is essential that Congress extend this tax credit. This legislation would extend the existing credit for another 4 years, until the end of 2014.

The legislation also makes several changes in the credit to make it more practical. For example, this bill would make it clear that a fueling station could obtain a separate credit for each type of alternative fuel that it chooses to distribute. Right now, the credit is capped at $50,000 per location regardless of the number of fuels that it may want to sell. The bill would also expand the base credit from $50,000 to $100,000 to bring it more in line with the actual cost of refueling and recharging equipment. Third, the bill would allow the credit to cover additional upgrades to building wiring or natural gas piping or other improvements that are necessary for the installation of the alternative fuel equipment, and expand the kinds of equipment that would be covered to include on-site fuel generation. The bill would also allow an option to obtain a smaller $10,000 credit for the installation of refueling devices, such as chargers for plug-in electric cars or slow-fill natural gas compressors, in lieu of the $100,000 credit per location. Finally, the bill would allow multiple owners of buildings, such as a condominium or a co-op, to share the credit.

Continued dependence on imported oil is an economic and national security danger. Giving Americans options to use alternative fueled vehicles is one major way in which to dramatically reduce this danger. This bill does not tell Americans which kind of car or truck to buy. It does not pick winners and losers from among already recognized alternative fuels. What it would do is make the availability of all alternative motor fuels more likely, and then the market will decide which technologies work best.

I urge other Senators to support this legislation and give Americans a real chance to cut our oil imports.

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

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

I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 15 minutes as in morning business.

Madam President, there are currently 48 vacancies on courts that the Federal judiciary considers to be judicial emergencies. Let me restate that. Filling these vacancies is now such a priority that they are considered judicial emergencies. One of those vacancies considered to be a judicial emergency is one of the positions for the U.S. District Court for Oregon. My view is this problem is only going to get worse with another 20 judges having announced plans to retire. If these positions remain vacant, we all understand it could delay trials and certainly justice delayed is justice denied.

The stalling of judicial nominations also discourages qualified candidates from serving on the bench. Those the country most needs on the bench cannot put their lives on hold for months or years while their nominations sit on the Senate calendar, blocked for no apparent reason.

One of the things that is most striking about how the country has gotten into this predicament is that experts who have analyzed the situation with respect to the delay in getting judges confirmed come back to Senate procedures as a significant factor in the holdup. Repeatedly, these independent experts say the Senate's secret hold, the process by which one Senator, just one, can anonymously block a judicial nomination from being considered on the floor of the Senate, is a central factor in the delay in getting these judges confirmed.

I have come to the Senate floor today to say, when we have so many designated judicial emergencies, when there are so many individuals who have won bipartisan support, and a big factor in not getting judges confirmed is the Senate is unwilling to do public business in public, it suggests to me it is time to eliminate the secret hold which is keeping sunshine from coming to the Senate when it comes to the consideration of judicial nominations and other important business.

Fortunately, colleagues on both sides of the aisle--a big group on our side of the aisle and a big group on the other side of the aisle-- have repeatedly said they want to come together, end secret holds, and do public business in public.

At this time I would particularly like to commend my colleague from Iowa, Senator Grassley, who has spent well over a decade working on this effort with me, and also single out Senator McCaskill from Missouri, who has done outstanding work as well mobilizing colleagues from both sides of the aisle, and who also wants to have this procedure changed and have new accountability and sunshine in the Senate.

All we need to be able to do is get this out in front of the Senate-- frankly, out in front of the American people--so they can find out who is in favor of transparency, who is in favor of accountability, and who still thinks we ought to do business behind closed doors.

Some in the Senate continue to claim a secret hold does not prevent the Senate from consideration of a nomination or piece of legislation. They say, for example, the majority leader can always file what we know as cloture on that nomination or bill to overcome a hold. That may be true in theory, but for all practical purposes it cannot be done. The process of filing cloture on a nomination certainly can gobble up almost a week on the Senate schedule. So the Senate could easily spend the remainder of the time remaining this year with votes on just a few nominations now on the Executive Calendar and still not come close to clearing the backlog of nominations. The fact is, a secret hold can effectively kill a nomination or piece of legislation.

As we have said, our big bipartisan group in the Senate repeatedly has said all of this secrecy, all of this work to keep the public from finding out what is going on--all of it can be done without anybody, any colleagues in the Senate or the American people, knowing who was the secret obstructor and why they were, in fact, obstructing.

There is one other point I would like to make, particularly with so much of the country looking at how Washington, DC, works and how broken so much of our system is; that is, how much power a secret hold provides to a lobbyist. I am sure virtually every Member of the Senate has at some point gotten a request from somebody who is a lobbyist asking if the Senator would put a secret hold on a bill or nomination in order to kill it--to kill it without getting any public debate and without the lobbyist's fingerprints on it anywhere.

Certainly, if a lobbyist finds it possible to get a Senator to put an anonymous hold on a bill, it is pretty much like hitting the lobbyist jackpot. Not only is the Senator protected by the cloak of anonymity, but so is the lobbyist, and in effect, through secrecy, a secret hold can let the lobbyist play both sides of the street. It can give a lobbyist a victory with clients without alienating a potential or future client.

Given the number of instances where I heard a lobbyist asking for secret holds, I think it is fair to say a secret hold is in effect a stealth extension of the lobbying world.

So when you think about the powers that lobbyists already have, why in the world would you want to give them another tool, the secret hold, which could, as I have characterized it, literally be a stealth extension of the lobbying world. I think it makes no sense at all, and I come down on the side of openness and transparency.

I congratulate my colleague, Senator Grassley from Iowa, who stood with me, and Senator McCaskill--a big group of colleagues from both sides. On the other side of the aisle, Senator Collins, Senator Inhofe, and others have spent a great deal of time. Here it has been Senator Whitehouse, Senator Udall, and the presiding officer, Senator Gillibrand--a whole host of colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, who think it is time, when the American people are obviously so angry at the way Washington, DC, does business, to make it clear that we are all going to come together and change the process of letting an individual Senator obstruct the people's business in secret.

It seems to me the bottom line is that a secret hold is literally an indefensible denial of the public's right to know, particularly at a time when there is so much frustration and anger at the way business is done in Washington, DC. The public's right to know

ought to be sacrosanct. Certainly, we are talking about the kind of matters Democrats and Republicans talk about all the time in public. Nobody is talking about national security or classified matters being brought out here for the kind of sunshine that I and Senator Grassley and Senator McCaskill want to bring to the Senate. This is about the people's business--legislation and nominations, those judicial emergencies and the scores of appointments that are being held up, pieces of legislation that involve millions of people and billions of dollars. It seems to me there ought to be public disclosure. There ought to be consequences if a Senator fails to disclose a secret hold.

In the interest of dealing with the crisis in our courts and the importance of bringing public business to the floor of the Senate, I hope my colleagues will come together and quickly pass the bipartisan proposal which will once and for all eliminate secret holds.

There have been past attempts. Senator Grassley and I were able, as part of the ethics legislation, to get a provision through that we hoped would make a big difference. What happened then is, the friends of secrecy went back and found other ways to get around it. It is time once and for all to strangle secret holds. That is what a bipartisan group in the Senate wants to do, and it is important that measure be enacted and enacted quickly.

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

Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to take a few minutes to talk about this issue of campaign ads being run all across the land and millions of dollars being spent by groups with misleading names, leaving our voters without any knowledge of who is behind the ads they are hearing.

To me, the lack of accountability and civility and literal accuracy in political campaigns is absolutely unacceptable, and I am of the view that we ought to be asking here in the Senate whether this is really the best we can do to ensure accountability and openness in American politics. I think the answer to that is, it is a no-brainer. There ought to be basic disclosure of who is behind all of those ads that are flooding the airwaves. That is what is behind the DISCLOSE legislation, the bill that has been brought before the Senate to ensure that it is possible for Americans, at a time when there is intense interest in American politics, to know who is sponsoring all of these commercials that are rushing at the American people pell-mell over the airwaves.

What is striking is how stark the inequities in all of this are. What I am particularly troubled about is that as a result of the Supreme Court decision, it is possible today for a foreign interest with no vote here in the United States to have a more substantial voice in our elections this fall than any hard-working American taxpayer. When you break that down, you really get a sense of just how outlandish this Supreme Court decision is. Let me repeat that. Foreign interests, through a subsidiary, with no vote here in the United States, will have a louder voice in the State of Alaska, in the State of Oregon, than any of the hard-working taxpayers whom we are honored to represent here in the Senate. I think that indicates that the campaign finance system is way out of whack.

This Supreme Court decision, in my view, has literally blown the hinges off the doors of our democracy. What is needed is legislation such as the DISCLOSE Act to ensure accountability, civility, and accuracy in political campaigns.

My view is that the lack of that kind of accountability creates not only confusion but even resentment among voters. The reason I know that is that the situation the country finds itself in now is very similar to what I saw when I first ran for the Senate in 1996 against the man who eventually became my colleague and good friend in the Senate, Gordon Smith. That was the only race in the United States at that time, the winter of 1996. Attack ads were being run by all sides, left and right. Senator Smith and I literally had no idea who was behind a lot of the attack ads. We made the judgment that while policy differences and personal criticisms are certainly a fair and legitimate part of a political campaign, what is not acceptable is the situation our country finds itself in, once again; that is, the huge numbers of ads being run where nobody could figure out who was behind some of the attacks, attacks that were pretty vicious and certainly high decibel.

So I came to the Senate in the winter of 1996, and I vowed to try to make some changes. I vowed to work with colleagues of both parties to bring transparency and accountability to campaign advertising. I had the good fortune to find a terrific partner in this effort with our colleague from Maine, Senator Susan Collins. As part of the McCain- Feingold bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, Senator Collins and I were able to win passage of an amendment which has come to be known as the stand by your ad disclosure requirement. Not only have we all seen these ads, everyone who has run to serve in this distinguished Chamber has recorded them. It is real simple. I am Mark Begich. I approved this message. I am Ron Wyden, and I approved

this message. It is not a hard thing to do. It comes about as a result of the fact that a colleague on the other side of the aisle, Senator Collins, joined me in this effort that I believed passionately in after that Senate special election in the winter of 1996.

That simple disclosure requirement gives voters very important information about who is behind a political ad. I am of the view that disclosure should not be required just for candidates but for anyone-- interest groups, corporations--who seeks to communicate a political message. Unfortunately, after the Citizens United ruling, there are a variety of these interests that are now free to spend unlimited amounts of money on political ads without voters knowing who is paying for the ads. That is dangerous for democracy. It is wrong, and it needs to be stopped.

The stand by your ad provision of the DISCLOSE Act would require the top official, the CEO or a top official from a company, a union or any organization paying for a political advertisement to take responsibility for the ad. The DISCLOSE Act can't prevent the formation of misleading front organizations, but another provision would require disclosure of the top five funders to allow voters to know who is behind the ad.

I am of the view that companies, unions, other organizations ought to be held to the same standards of transparency and accountability in their political advertising as political candidates and political action committees. It is, in a one-sentence description, all about sunshine. Sunshine is the best disinfectant. The disclosure requirements in this legislation are going to give voters more information and help them understand who is paying for these political ads.

I continue, as the Presiding Officer knows, to do everything I can to work in the Senate in a bipartisan fashion. I am pleased to see my distinguished colleague in the chair. He has joined me with Senator Gregg and a number of colleagues on both sides of the aisle in what is the first bipartisan tax reform legislation in a quarter century. It picks up on another bipartisan model--legislation advanced by former President Reagan, Bill Bradley, Dan Rostenkowski, and others. A big day is coming up in tax reform. That is tomorrow. Chairman Baucus is going to lead us into the first debate in a long time about tax reform. I very much look forward to working with Chairman Baucus and his leadership on this issue.

I see my colleague from the Finance Committee, Senator Grassley. If we are going to duplicate that important tax reform work of 1986, it is going to be Chairman Baucus, Senator Grassley, Senator Hatch, the leaders of our committee taking us forward in a bipartisan way so the distinguished Senator from Alaska and I and other more junior members can work with our colleagues and make some history and fix the American tax system, radically simplify it. But to do that we will have to work in a bipartisan way.

I come to the floor to say, once again, I am hopeful that the DISCLOSE legislation, which provides an opportunity for transparency and accountability in campaign finance, can also become a bipartisan cause. There is absolutely nothing partisan about the question of making sure a political advertisement that is offered is one where the American people know who is behind it. That is not a partisan issue. As my friend from Alaska knows, it certainly isn't a partisan issue to take this unbelievable mess of a Tax Code that runs page after page after page, thousands of words, and simplify it to a one-page form, a one-page 1040 form. That is not partisan work, nor should disclosing campaign finance advertisements be partisan either.

I ask on this question of election reform, look at the present system, where there is no accountability, where people don't know who is behind these advertisements, and ask: Is this the best we can do? I think the answer is obviously no. I think the answer is, instead, to say that companies and unions and other organizations ought to be held to the same standard of honesty and integrity as political candidates are required to do under the legislation Senator Collins and I authored as part of McCain-Feingold.

The fact is, this Senate can do better in election reform. I urge colleagues to work together to bring transparency and accountability to American elections and pass the DISCLOSE Act.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, it is clear from the debate on the Defense bill and the vote that was held a bit ago that this is a partisan time for our Nation. I come to the floor this afternoon to talk about an issue that is not at all partisan; that is, the question of doing public business in public.

When you say those words--``doing public business in public''--people are almost flabbergasted when they are told that, regrettably, much of the important decisionmaking in the Senate is not done with that level of public accountability and public transparency. That is because of what are known as secret holds where one Senator--just one--in a completely anonymous fashion, can block a bill or a nomination from even coming to light, from even being heard in the Senate.

For years now, there has been a bipartisan effort to change this procedure, to require that all Senators be held accountable. Senator Grassley and I have been involved in this effort in a bipartisan way for over a dozen years--for a dozen years--trying every way we could. We established the principle that the Senate would do public business in public, and if a Senator wanted to object to a bill or a nomination, they would have to be publicly accountable.

For years now, the defenders of secrecy, the defenders of a system without transparency and accountability look for one dodge or another. But our bipartisan group--on the other side of the aisle, Senator Grassley, of course, the champion, Senator Collins, Senator Inhofe, a very significant bipartisan group; over on our side of the aisle, and particularly appreciative, is Senator McCaskill, who has done such hard work on the principle of establishing open accountability; my colleague from the Pacific Northwest, Senator Murray, an influential member of the Rules Committee, want this level of public accountability. It has been a big bipartisan group, and we seek to finally change this procedure through an amendment that would have been possible under the Defense authorization bill.

It was said in the course of this discussion that a bipartisan effort to end secret holds through an amendment to the Defense authorization bill is ``a corruption of the process and procedures of the Senate if ever there was one.'' I believe the use of secret holds and not a bipartisan effort to end them is the real corruption of the procedures of the Senate.

Secret holds cannot be found anywhere in the U.S. Constitution or anywhere in the Senate rules. We have had a considerable debate over the last few months about the Constitution, our reverence for this sacred document. Secret holds are nowhere in the Constitution and nowhere in the Senate rules. Yet in this Congress alone, they have been used to block what seems to be dozens of qualified nominees. I point out, this has gone on for years and years on both sides of the aisle. That is the point Senator Grassley and I have emphasized for over a decade: that this is an area of abuse where we have seen both sides of the aisle use the secret processes to the detriment of the public interest.

The real corruption of the process, in my view, is the way secret holds have been used to block the Senate from acting on numerous nominations and pieces of legislation without any accountability to the public. That is why I believe it ought to be possible to debate a bipartisan amendment, to do public business in public to end these secret holds.

The reason it needs to be done now is because past efforts to ban these secret procedures have been blocked from getting a vote. This has happened five times in just the past few months.

In the course of the debate as well, there was a discussion about what our bipartisan effort--to do public business in public--has to do with national security. The answer is: a great deal.

For example, earlier this year, one of our colleagues secretly placed a blanket hold on 70 nominations to critical positions in the Federal Government that were pending before the Senate. These nominations included nominees to positions in the Defense Department and the State Department. The Senator who secretly held up those 70 nominees said he was doing it to address national security concerns.

Let me repeat that. We had 70 nominees under a blanket hold being held up from even an open debate to address national security concerns.

It turned out that this particular Senator was concerned about a dispute about the Defense Department's contracting practices and an earmark for a counterterrorism center in the Senator's home State. This one example shows that secret holds have been used, and certainly the question of whether they have been abused, to hold up dozens of qualified nominees over defense and national security issues.

This is only one example. Even today, there is at least one nominee for a national security position whose nomination is secretly being held up. No one knows who has the hold or why it has been placed.

I come back to the connection, first, that changing these Senate procedures so public business is done in public is fundamental to all the operations of the Senate and certainly our accountability to the American people. But it has a direct link because of the examples I have cited this afternoon to the future of national security policy in our country.

The continued use of secret holds is an abuse of secrecy by the Senate, and there is no better time to end this undemocratic process than through an amendment to the Defense bill. With colleagues on both sides of the aisle determined, finally, to get this done, I believe we will get it done when we get an open debate.

Our democracy and our national security are weakened when secrecy is abused. I very much appreciate the opportunity this afternoon to highlight a number of key points in this discussion. First, this has absolutely nothing to do with partisanship. Second, it is absolutely key to the fundamental accountability of the Senate to the American people to end this process of secrecy and of all Senators held accountable. Finally, this has a direct

connection to matters of national security because in so many instances, these secret holds have kept appointments to key national security positions from being open to debate and scrutiny in the Senate.

At the end of the day, there are a lot of issues we face in the Senate that are hard to explain, that are complicated, and they are hard for folks to follow at home. What is not hard to explain is why it is so important to do public business in public.

At a time when the American people are certainly voicing considerable skepticism about the ways of Washington, this is a chance to show the American people that the Senate is listening to them, that we share their commitment to open government, to doing public business in public. I hope the Senate will be able to change this offensive, antidemocratic procedure that has been used way too long to keep the American people from seeing the way the Senate operates.

I look forward to our colleagues on both sides of the aisle having the debate on ending secret holds, doing public business in public. I believe that when we get that vote, we will get a resounding vote to finally close this dark chapter in the way the Senate does business and bring some sunshine to the decisionmaking process in the Senate.

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

Mr. President, this week marks the 50th anniversary of one of the most remarkable innovations in modern medicine. On September 21, 1960, at the University of Oregon Medical School, Dr. Albert Starr successfully implanted the first prosthetic mechanical heart valve. In 1958, Lowell Edwards, a retired mechanical engineer, approached Dr. Starr about the possibility of creating an artificial heart. Believing artificial heart technology to be a bit premature, Starr encouraged Edwards to consider valve replacement surgery. The valve they designed--a ball and cage mechanical valve--was successfully implanted in its first patient just 2 years later. For this achievement, Dr. Starr was the co-recipient of the Albert Lasker Award, for Clinical Medical Research in 2007.

Dr. Starr continues to contribute to the development of medical science as the director emeritus of Providence Heart and Vascular Institute, medical director of the Albert Starr Academic Center, and director of bioscience research and development for Providence Health & Services in Oregon.

Since the valve's first use in 1960, heart valve replacement surgery has saved millions of lives, giving hope to those with heart disease. Today, life saving heart valve replacement surgery is performed 300,000 times each year around the globe, with more than 90,000 of those operations taking place in the U.S.

Dr. Starr says he considers his legacy to be about the people he has trained and his patients. For him, the human interaction has been the most important aspect of his lifetime of achievements. I am grateful for his passion to help people and to help advance medical science.

It is an honor for me to recognize Dr. Albert Starr for his contributions to medical innovation and I am proud to have him call Oregon his home.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleague from Idaho, Senator Mike Crapo, in introducing the Geothermal Energy Investment Act of 2010. This legislation will amend an already existing investment tax credit for geothermal energy authorized under Sec. 48 of the tax code. The bill would provide geothermal energy with the same 30 percent investment tax credit that is now available to solar energy and fuel cell technologies in Sec. 48 and extend this 30 percent tax credit for geothermal through December 31, 2016, as it is for these other technologies. Without this legislation, new geothermal energy projects would be allowed only a 10 percent investment tax credit under Section 48. This legislation will create a more level playing field among clean, renewable energy technologies and support substantial growth in utility scale geothermal power, distributed on-site power generation, and heating for buildings and commercial processes.

Geothermal energy facilities provide a continuous supply of renewable energy with very few environmental impacts. Although the United States has more geothermal capacity than any other country, this potential has been barely tapped. This shortfall is partly due to the high initial cost and risk involved in locating and developing geothermal resources. Extending the 30 percent tax credit through 2016 will help give geothermal developers the assurance they need to make the long lead- time investments in exploration and development necessary to make expansion of geothermal energy a reality.

This legislation is identical to a bipartisan companion bill, H.R. 5612, that Representative Earl Blumenauer from Oregon has introduced in the House.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleague from Idaho, Senator Mike Crapo, in introducing the Geothermal Energy Investment Act of 2010. This legislation will amend an already existing investment tax credit for geothermal energy authorized under Sec. 48 of the tax code. The bill would provide geothermal energy with the same 30 percent investment tax credit that is now available to solar energy and fuel cell technologies in Sec. 48 and extend this 30 percent tax credit for geothermal through December 31, 2016, as it is for these other technologies. Without this legislation, new geothermal energy projects would be allowed only a 10 percent investment tax credit under Section 48. This legislation will create a more level playing field among clean, renewable energy technologies and support substantial growth in utility scale geothermal power, distributed on-site power generation, and heating for buildings and commercial processes.

Geothermal energy facilities provide a continuous supply of renewable energy with very few environmental impacts. Although the United States has more geothermal capacity than any other country, this potential has been barely tapped. This shortfall is partly due to the high initial cost and risk involved in locating and developing geothermal resources. Extending the 30 percent tax credit through 2016 will help give geothermal developers the assurance they need to make the long lead- time investments in exploration and development necessary to make expansion of geothermal energy a reality.

This legislation is identical to a bipartisan companion bill, H.R. 5612, that Representative Earl Blumenauer from Oregon has introduced in the House.

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

Mr. President, I rise in support of the nomination of Solicitor General Elena Kagan to serve as Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court. A lifetime appointment to the highest Court in the land is a serious matter, and confirming each Justice is one of the most solemn duties of any Senator.

When I sat down with her, I was struck by Ms. Kagan's obvious intelligence and candor. It was also obvious that her wealth of professional experience has given her a real reverence for our country's rule of law. As the confirmation process went on, I paid close attention to the answers Ms. Kagan gave to my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee in her hearing. What comes across loud and clear when one listens to Ms. Kagan is that she has a strong belief in the Constitution and an understanding of its purpose to serve and protect the American people.

Throughout the arduous process of being a Supreme Court nominee, Ms. Kagan has impressed me at every turn with her intellect, integrity, and independence. These are fundamental traits our Nation needs in every member of the highest Court in the land.

But being a Supreme Court Justice requires more than surviving the confirmation process. If confirmed, Ms. Kagan would be ruling on the most important and urgent matters facing our Nation. Her voice would carry with it the rich and varied background of professional experience that would sound a note of true intellectual independence.

Although some have found fault with the fact that she has never served as a judge, I have never believed that lack of prior judicial experience should stop someone from serving with distinction on the Court. After all, some of our greatest jurists had no experience as a judge--Justices John Marshall, Louis Brandeis, Felix Frankfurter, and William Rehnquist among them. In place of that singular legal experience, Ms. Kagan brings expertise that she has earned in all three branches of government, as well as the private sector as an attorney in private practice and as the dean of Harvard Law School.

In talking with Ms. Kagan, I came away confident that she well understands the proper role of a judge and will not attempt to legislate from the bench. I discussed with Ms. Kagan her views and approach to some of the important issues the Court will address in upcoming years, such as national security, the limits of executive power, and the protection of civil liberties.

I also spoke with Ms. Kagan about an issue of particular concern to Oregonians one which they have endorsed twice at the ballot box--the right to control end-of-life decisions. Oregon voters twice approved death with dignity ballot measures. I have long believed that their decision should be respected by the courts, and I am pleased the Supreme Court has agreed with that view. While not taking a position on specific questions that could come before the Court, Ms. Kagan reassured me that she sees this as Oregonians do. She believes end-of- life decisions are protected by constitutional privacy rights, and she believes the Federal Government should not contravene State laws that protect individual rights on this issue.

Finally, I was also comfortable with the way Ms. Kagan explained her views on a frequently litigated constitutional issue, the limits of congressional power to act under the commerce clause. Ms. Kagan's answers assured me she has a very thorough and nuanced understanding of commerce clause jurisprudence and that she will rule on commerce authority cases with both deference and wisdom.

I am convinced, based on everything I have heard, that Ms. Kagan possesses the intellect, integrity, and independence to serve as an extraordinary Justice on the Supreme Court. With the retirement of Justice Stevens, Ms. Kagan certainly has large shoes to fill.

But I have no doubt she is more than up to the task, and our country's laws will be safely guarded in her hands. That is why Elena Kagan has my support, and I will vote to confirm her as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.

Mr. President, today the Senate has passed legislation that will make a historic investment in our children by approving the first increase in real terms of the reimbursement rate for school lunches in 40 years.

Now 10,000 children a year will have new access to free school meals. Throughout the country, there are people working hard to make sure these kids have a least one healthy meal each day. In my State, one of the people who makes that happen is Betty Brain of the Blazers Boys and Girls Club in Portland. She is known as Chef Betty and every day she cooks meals for more than 200 underserved kids, dishing up healthy foods with fresh ingredients to keep them healthy and strong.

Chef Betty is not just a cook. She is an inspiration to the kids who come to the Boys and Girls Club every day. These kids are family to her, and she makes it her personal responsibility to make sure they get not only a good meal but also a kind word and a helping hand.

I can guarantee that there is a Chef Betty in every Boys and Girls Club in America--someone who understands how important it is to help a child in whatever way she can.

For all the Chef Bettys in America, we need to reauthorize these programs so they can keep those kids from being forced into eating not just any food but good food made by good people.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Enforcing Orders and Reducing Circumvention and Evasion Act--or the ENFORCE Act-- of 2010.

We all know what a tax cheat is; well let me tell you about a trade cheat.

You see, under U.S. trade laws, when a certain import is found to be unfairly traded, that is, it benefits from government subsidies or is sold below market prices, the U.S. Department of Commerce imposes additional duties on these imports. These duties, we call them anti- dumping and countervailing duties, or AD/CVD, ensure that American producers are only asked to compete on a playing field that is level.

But we have these trade cheats out there. They cheat American taxpayers out of the revenue that is supposed to be collected on imports, and which is needed to reduce the budget deficit, and they cheat American producers out of business that may otherwise be theirs. In short, the trade cheats steal American jobs and America's treasure.

The U.S.' AD/CVD laws form its industries' protective backbone against injury from illegally dumped or subsidized imports. However, these trade remedy laws are only effective to the extent that they are enforced. We have an enforcement problem.

The trade cheats are increasingly--and brazenly--employing a variety of schemes to evade AD/CVD orders. Sometimes, they hustle their merchandise through foreign ports to claim that it originates from somewhere it doesn't. Other times, the trade cheats will provide fraudulent information to government authorities at American ports of entry, or engage in schemes to mislabel and misrepresent imports.

U.S. industry sources estimate that approximately $91 million in AD/ CV duties that were supposed to be applied to just four steel products went uncollected as a result of evasion in 2009. This is an amount equal to 30 percent of all AD/CV duties CBP collected that year. With 300 current AD/CVD orders in place on countless products from over 40 countries, the potential for AD/CV duty evasion is vast, and hundreds of millions of AD/CV duties may be unaccounted for. Every penny counts and we have an obligation to the American businesses, and the workers they rely on, to do a better job.

The U.S. Customs and Border Protection, or CBP, is the nation's frontline defense against unfair trade and is responsible for enforcing U.S. trade remedy laws and collecting AD/CV duties. Yet if you listen to the concerns of domestic producers, as I and many of my colleagues do, timely and effective enforcement of AD/CVD orders remains problematic and AD/CV duty evasion continues, seemingly unabated.

I have enormous respect for the men and women of CBP who manage U.S. borders, and believe its new commissioner is committed to improving the trade enforcement and trade facilitation functions of CBP. When U.S. producers spend the time and resources to submit to CBP evidence of AD/ CVD evasion, CBP should be held accountable to acting on that evidence and communicating its actions to U.S. industry in a timely manner. It is not held accountable now to the degree it should be. I grow concerned that U.S. producers are spending too much time and resources trying to indentify unfair trade and help government agencies enforce the trade laws. American industry needs to be free to do what it does best, which is to innovate and produce goods that are competitive in free and fair markets.

The bill I am introducing today, with my friend and colleague, Senator Snowe from Maine, will go a long way toward empowering the Federal Government to do a better job to combat the trade cheats and enforce U.S. trade laws. I'd like to highlight just a few of the main provisions.

First, the ENFORCE Act will expand the U.S. Department of Commerce's authority to investigate circumvention to include misrepresented merchandise that might evade AD/CVD orders. As the agency tasked with investigating allegations of dumping and harmful government subsidization, Commerce has the industry and product expertise to investigate this type of AD/CVD circumvention. This bill will not diminish CBP's role; rather, it will bolster greater cooperation and information sharing between the two agencies to combat the unfair trade practices that hurt U.S. industry and its ability to create jobs.

Second, the bill will create a process by which U.S. industry can submit to CBP a formal petition containing allegations of AD/CVD evasion, and CBP must reach a conclusive determination within a set time period. If it cannot, then the petition is transferred to the Department of Commerce for separate circumvention proceedings. The ENFORCE Act will require a greater level of responsiveness and accountability to U.S. producers while providing for increased collaboration between these two government agencies to improve enforcement of U.S. trade laws.

Third, the bill will enhance information among the federal agencies once an importer is suspected of evading an AD/CVD order. Many of the same schemes importers employ to evade an AD/CVD order, like mislabeling, often shirk other regimes put in place to ensure that products are safe for consumption by American families. Enhanced information sharing will provide greater protection against imports that may cause harm to U.S. consumers.

This bill presents a commonsense strategy to combat trade cheating and the evasion of antidumping and countervailing duty collection. Enforcing U.S. trade laws and combating unfair trade practices must be a central pillar of an economic and trade policy that is designed to promote economic growth and job expansion. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate and with my friends in the House of Representatives to build support for this initiative and to take action on behalf of American producers.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Enforcing Orders and Reducing Circumvention and Evasion Act--or the ENFORCE Act-- of 2010.

We all know what a tax cheat is; well let me tell you about a trade cheat.

You see, under U.S. trade laws, when a certain import is found to be unfairly traded, that is, it benefits from government subsidies or is sold below market prices, the U.S. Department of Commerce imposes additional duties on these imports. These duties, we call them anti- dumping and countervailing duties, or AD/CVD, ensure that American producers are only asked to compete on a playing field that is level.

But we have these trade cheats out there. They cheat American taxpayers out of the revenue that is supposed to be collected on imports, and which is needed to reduce the budget deficit, and they cheat American producers out of business that may otherwise be theirs. In short, the trade cheats steal American jobs and America's treasure.

The U.S.' AD/CVD laws form its industries' protective backbone against injury from illegally dumped or subsidized imports. However, these trade remedy laws are only effective to the extent that they are enforced. We have an enforcement problem.

The trade cheats are increasingly--and brazenly--employing a variety of schemes to evade AD/CVD orders. Sometimes, they hustle their merchandise through foreign ports to claim that it originates from somewhere it doesn't. Other times, the trade cheats will provide fraudulent information to government authorities at American ports of entry, or engage in schemes to mislabel and misrepresent imports.

U.S. industry sources estimate that approximately $91 million in AD/ CV duties that were supposed to be applied to just four steel products went uncollected as a result of evasion in 2009. This is an amount equal to 30 percent of all AD/CV duties CBP collected that year. With 300 current AD/CVD orders in place on countless products from over 40 countries, the potential for AD/CV duty evasion is vast, and hundreds of millions of AD/CV duties may be unaccounted for. Every penny counts and we have an obligation to the American businesses, and the workers they rely on, to do a better job.

The U.S. Customs and Border Protection, or CBP, is the nation's frontline defense against unfair trade and is responsible for enforcing U.S. trade remedy laws and collecting AD/CV duties. Yet if you listen to the concerns of domestic producers, as I and many of my colleagues do, timely and effective enforcement of AD/CVD orders remains problematic and AD/CV duty evasion continues, seemingly unabated.

I have enormous respect for the men and women of CBP who manage U.S. borders, and believe its new commissioner is committed to improving the trade enforcement and trade facilitation functions of CBP. When U.S. producers spend the time and resources to submit to CBP evidence of AD/ CVD evasion, CBP should be held accountable to acting on that evidence and communicating its actions to U.S. industry in a timely manner. It is not held accountable now to the degree it should be. I grow concerned that U.S. producers are spending too much time and resources trying to indentify unfair trade and help government agencies enforce the trade laws. American industry needs to be free to do what it does best, which is to innovate and produce goods that are competitive in free and fair markets.

The bill I am introducing today, with my friend and colleague, Senator Snowe from Maine, will go a long way toward empowering the Federal Government to do a better job to combat the trade cheats and enforce U.S. trade laws. I'd like to highlight just a few of the main provisions.

First, the ENFORCE Act will expand the U.S. Department of Commerce's authority to investigate circumvention to include misrepresented merchandise that might evade AD/CVD orders. As the agency tasked with investigating allegations of dumping and harmful government subsidization, Commerce has the industry and product expertise to investigate this type of AD/CVD circumvention. This bill will not diminish CBP's role; rather, it will bolster greater cooperation and information sharing between the two agencies to combat the unfair trade practices that hurt U.S. industry and its ability to create jobs.

Second, the bill will create a process by which U.S. industry can submit to CBP a formal petition containing allegations of AD/CVD evasion, and CBP must reach a conclusive determination within a set time period. If it cannot, then the petition is transferred to the Department of Commerce for separate circumvention proceedings. The ENFORCE Act will require a greater level of responsiveness and accountability to U.S. producers while providing for increased collaboration between these two government agencies to improve enforcement of U.S. trade laws.

Third, the bill will enhance information among the federal agencies once an importer is suspected of evading an AD/CVD order. Many of the same schemes importers employ to evade an AD/CVD order, like mislabeling, often shirk other regimes put in place to ensure that products are safe for consumption by American families. Enhanced information sharing will provide greater protection against imports that may cause harm to U.S. consumers.

This bill presents a commonsense strategy to combat trade cheating and the evasion of antidumping and countervailing duty collection. Enforcing U.S. trade laws and combating unfair trade practices must be a central pillar of an economic and trade policy that is designed to promote economic growth and job expansion. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate and with my friends in the House of Representatives to build support for this initiative and to take action on behalf of American producers.

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

I thank my colleague. I especially appreciate his kind words about a piece of legislation Senator Gregg and I sat for the better part of 2 years working on. I think everyone appreciates colleagues supporting their legislation. I appreciate the Senator's kind words.

I think he is right with respect to the relief, and colleagues will see that, whether it is the Heritage organization or the Brookings Institution or the various analyses that have been done by other groups. But I think it is especially important, even apart from our piece of legislation, that we get at the central question the Senator's talking about, which is, the current tax system is broken. It is broken, and we are not going to get the country where we need to go by just kind of tinkering here and tinkering there.

I wish to give a couple examples because I think the central question is, Are we going to make a break with a broken system and look forward or are we going to do what has been done year after year after year, which is to just to tinker with a broken system and cause more problems?

Here is the heart of it. What we are seeing today is that every few years there are thousands of changes in tax law. So that means all the small businesses--and you were a small business leader before you came to the Senate--all those small businesses, trying to compete in the tough global market, incredibly competitive markets, do not even have any certainty and predictability of what is ahead. They are not in a position to be able to know what the Federal Government and particularly the IRS is going do in terms of taxes, and that drains additional chances for them to make changes in

their production, in their workplace, productivity areas. It defies common sense. So the fact that there are these thousands of changes every few years, in my view, is very antibusiness, and particularly antismall business.

Then, the second point that the Senator touched on deals with individuals. The reality is, today, the current tax system is so complicated that most Americans do not even know when a tax break has been extended to them.

The Senator and I have talked about it. It seems to me Senator Begich made the central point here. In the stimulus legislation, in the Recovery Act, there were $300 billion worth of tax cuts put into that legislation--$300 billion worth of tax cuts. If we left today and walked the streets in Anchorage or Portland or Gresham or wherever and asked people about the stimulus legislation, people would know virtually nothing about any tax incentives.

Please.

The other aspect of the Recovery Act, I think, that reaffirms this point with respect to the complexity is the Internal Revenue Service puts out what they call their annual ``oops'' list. This is the list of the 10 most common mistakes made by taxpayers when filing. The ``oops'' list released this past March included, for example, one of the principal credits in the Recovery Act because people simply were unable to figure out how to make it work on their 1040EZ forms. So the fact is, the Tax Code today is anything but an easy system. It is quite the opposite.

To further support the point with respect to the complexity, this year individuals and businesses are going to spend 10.6 billion hours to comply with the code. If the tax compliance sector were an industry, it would be one of the Nation's largest, requiring a full-time effort of 3.8 million people to get done that 7.6 billion hours.

The cost of compliance is jaw-dropping, $200 billion a year, 15 percent of all tax revenue the IRS collects each year. So the point of this is, we are at a fork in the road. We can either look to the kind of approach that a Republican President, Ronald Reagan, and a number of Democrats talked about one-quarter century ago and move in and drain the swamp, Democrats and Republicans together, taking on these special interest groups that have hijacked the Tax Code or the Congress can continue, as Senator Begich has said, to keep fiddling with one provision or another, making the Tax Code even more complicated, running what amounts to a full employment program for tax preparers or we can take steps that will make the code fairer and more progrowth.

I also think it is worth noting that in the last round of tinkering, 2001 and 2003, for much of that period we had stagnant economic growth. So we were not doing what the country needed in terms of fairness for the middle class, nor was the country doing what was essential in terms of promoting more high-skill, high-wage jobs.

You and I know, for example, if you take away the tax breaks for shipping jobs overseas, you can use that money to lower the cost to manufacture in this country. I see Senator Casey. He comes from the State of Pennsylvania. He has done terrific work because I have heard him on the floor talking about the importance of manufacturing.

This is one of the issues relating to the question of tax reform. Right now there are tax breaks in the code that reward companies for closing U.S. operations and moving them overseas. Why would not Democrats and Republicans want to go to a more simple system, as Senator Begich is talking about? That would be in the interest of fairness for all but also one that is likely to create more good-paying manufacturing jobs in Pennsylvania and other parts of the country, by taking away the tax break for shipping the jobs overseas and use those dollars to hold down costs for manufacturing red, white, and blue here in the United States. So I am very much appreciate Senator Begich taking this time. He has been awfully kind with us. I appreciate the kind words about the bill and having him on it. But I especially appreciate him outlining what this problem is all about in terms of starting--with getting beyond the tinkering and the complexity to real reform that works for all Americans.

I thank my friend.

Mr. President and colleagues, I rise today to talk about this legislation, the DISCLOSE Act.

Like much of the legislation that is being taken up in the Senate these days, the partisan battle lines are already being drawn on this bill. One side sees the impending vote as yet another opportunity to score some political points off the other, and vice versa. That makes for a lively debate, but I am not sure what good it does the American people.

I will say on a personal note that I will always fight with every ounce of my strength for the people of Oregon and the folks whom I have the honor to represent. I say to the Presiding Officer, you and I have talked about this from time to time. I do not exactly come to the floor of the Senate looking for gratuitous, political, counterproductive fights. What I have been interested in, what I have tried to make the hallmark of my service here, is trying to find common ground, trying to

find ways to bring people together. Some have said that is overly optimistic, almost too idealistic. But I prefer to say it is simply bipartisanship and principled bipartisan. It has been my experience in the Senate that if you can get folks to put aside their political talking points and focus on commonsense policy, not only are there opportunities for us in the Senate to find common ground, there are opportunities to advance policies that make sense for all Americans, whether they are Democrats or Republicans. I have joined Senator Schumer in cosponsoring the DISCLOSE Act because I continue to believe this is such an opportunity for bipartisanship and finding common ground.

For me, this issue took hold after the 1996 special election where Senator Smith, my former colleague--my very good and personal friend-- and I campaigned against each other to be Oregon's first new U.S. Senator in more than 30 years. Suffice it to say that campaign was not the kind of calm and upbeat debate that folks here in the Senate would expect from either me or from Gordon Smith. Instead, it was one of the ugliest campaigns in Oregon history. There were attack ads being run by both the left and the right. Certainly, while policy differences and personal criticisms are fair and an almost inevitable part of a political campaign, what bothered Senator Smith and me at that time, during that special election--the only race that was being run anywhere in our country--is not only did Oregon voters not know who was responsible for the bulk of those ads; neither Gordon Smith nor I could figure out who was saying what about whom.

My view was that something had to change. Something is way out of whack when you are having scores of ads, hundreds and hundreds of ads being run, and no one can figure out who is running them. My concern is that we are heading back into exactly that same kind of situation, given the decision from the U.S. Supreme Court.

Shortly after my election in 1996, when I had watched all of those ads being run from all those various and sundry groups and not able to identify who was running them, I came back to the Senate and said I am going to do everything I can to change that. I got together with a number of us on both sides of the aisle; let me emphasize that, because it can't be emphasized enough. This was a bipartisan group that was concerned about that particular issue. We came up with a concept known as Stand By Your Ad, where, in effect, those who run ads in their campaigns--it has continued to this day--would have to own up to their being the ones sponsoring the message.

As part of the campaign reform of 2002, Stand By Your Ad was included. In my view, it has ushered in a new era of personal accountability in political elections by requiring candidates to take personal responsibility for the contents of their ads. Not only has every Member of this body seen those ads; my guess is just about everyone but our new colleague from West Virginia has actually recorded those ads. That is, in effect, what is required. One has to say: ``I am Ron Wyden and I approved this message.'' It certainly isn't a hard thing to do, and it certainly is not out of line with what the American people have a right to expect, which is openness and personal accountability.

Now with the Supreme Court decision giving corporations and unions and even foreign economic interests the ability to spend as much, if not more, money to influence elections than the candidates themselves, I think it is only right that these groups abide by the same rules as the candidates themselves. Just as voters have a right to know when a candidate is trying to influence their vote, I believe voters have a right to know when one of these powerful organizations seeks to do the same.

Of course, this is going to have an impact on the content of political speech. Sunlight is the most powerful disinfectant, and I think all of us ought to understand these groups that are buying all these ads are going to be a little bit more hesitant to pay for an outrageous attack, an outlandish overreach, if they know they have to put their name on it. I think the question that ought to be asked here in the Senate is not why should organizations have to stand by their political speech, but the question should be why don't they want to. What are they actually ashamed of? In my view, if you feel strongly enough about an issue to buy television time, you ought to have the guts to put your name on it. I have felt that ever since 1996 when I first campaigned for the Senate, and I continue to believe that today.

I know the debate we are going to have tonight and tomorrow on the DISCLOSE Act is going to spur a lot of very impassioned speeches about political elections, and there are going to be accusations flown by one side or another about who is going to get a political advantage and what ought to be done to quash the person who is somehow deriving a political advantage out of it. But I would simply say as we go into this discussion that everybody here in the Senate ought to remember exactly how we earned our seats in the first place.

This very institution was founded on the idea of equality and free and open debate. Each and every citizen's voice and vote would be given the same weight as each and every other. What concerns me is that the Supreme Court decision, in my view--I say this respectfully--does a disservice to that concept by making it possible for some voices to drown out others. That is what ought to be contemplated at this point, and it is certainly what I have been talking about at home, which is that this decision has made it effectively possible for a foreign economic interest to have a louder voice in this country's political process than a hard-working, tax-paying Oregonian. I don't think that is fair; I don't think it is just; and I am not prepared to stand for it.

I am proud to join Senator Schumer in sponsoring and advocating for this important legislation that, in my view, is worthy of bipartisanship. I know there is going to be a strong push to deal with the politics of this issue, but I think this bill is now worthy of bipartisan support.

Changes have been made to the legislation to address some of the original concerns that were expressed about the bill. There were concerns originally addressed that some groups weren't being held as accountable as others and I believe the legislation has been amended to correct many of those problems. I think Senator Schumer deserves considerable credit for it. I have always felt that a credible effort at transparency means you have to hold your friends just as accountable as those who may disagree with you, and this legislation does that. It does other important reforms in terms of electronic filing, and I think it is very much in the interests of the American people. It certainly will make it possible for the press to report more expeditiously on these kinds of expenditures.

I wish to commend Chairman Schumer of the Rules Committee. I think he has been genuinely interested in a collaborative and open process. I believe Senator Schumer has asked me specifically to participate in this kind of process because he knows that is what I feel so strongly about.

We have major issues we have to tackle in the days ahead. I heard Senator Kyl talk about taxes. Senator Kyl made a point, in discussing taxes with me, about the whole role of tax expenditures which, in effect, is a huge issue in this tax debate. Senator Gregg and I have put out the first bipartisan tax reform bill in two decades. So we have a lot of work to do here and we have to do it in a bipartisan way. I am very hopeful the changes that have now been made, particularly ones ensuring that one makes it clear--that it is so important that accountability and transparency apply in the broadest possible way--and that will make it possible to bring both sides together here in the Senate.

We came together back in 1996 to write Stand By Your Ad. A number of those Senators on both sides of the aisle I know feel very strongly about open and transparent government. Let's find a way for the Senate to duplicate what we did in 1996, and let's make sure that as we go into this election there is transparency and accountability. I don't want to see again what we saw back in 1996 where ads are flying from all sides, in every direction, making charges that are clearly outrageous and over the line and in no way ensures that voters know who is

paying for those ads. The country deserves better. The Senate ought to make it possible for the country to get better and more accountable government, and I am very hopeful this Senate will pass the DISCLOSE Act, particularly the important changes that Senator Schumer has made, in the days ahead.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are taking a huge toll on our servicemembers and their families. To date, 123 Oregonians have died in those wars, leaving behind grieving friends and families. I'll never forget the pain I've heard in the voices of the Oregon parents I've spoken to after they've lost a son or daughter to war.

These parents are often called ``Gold Star parents'' because, by tradition, they display a Gold Star flag to let the world know of their sacrifice.

Our nation can't lift the burden of their grief. No one can.

However, our nation does commit to recognize the immense sacrifice of Gold Star parents by giving them certain benefits. One of those benefits is a 10-point hiring preference for unmarried Gold Star mothers when they apply for jobs with the federal government.

But I was surprised to learn that this preference cannot be given to Gold Star fathers. This inequity is a relic from the past; an example of the law has not kept up with the times. We can now see that all unmarried Gold Star mothers and fathers deserve to have the federal government recognize their sacrifice equally. That is why I am introducing a bill to update the law.

I learned of this disparity from my friend Steve Ellis of Baker City, Oregon. Steve lost his beloved daughter, Army Corporal Jessica Ann Ellis, when she was killed by a roadside bomb in Baghdad in 2008. Although Steve is a Gold Star father, he would still not be eligible for the benefit under my proposed change because he is married. But he didn't point out this inequity in the law for his own benefit. He did it for future Gold Star fathers. He saw an inequity in the law, and felt it was his duty to try and get it fixed for other Gold Star fathers.

So today I introduce the Jessica Ann Ellis Gold Star Fathers Act as a small legislative fix that will make a big change to federal veterans' preference laws through true equality.

This bill will give any unmarried Gold Star parent, regardless of gender, a 10-point hiring preference when they apply for federal jobs. It will also give the benefit to any unmarried parent of a totally and permanently disabled servicemember.

Gold Star mothers and fathers deserve equal recognition for the loss of a child who bravely made the ultimate sacrifice for his or her country. The Jessica Ann Ellis Gold Star Fathers Act will give them that.

This bill is supported by the American Gold Star Mothers organization, and is cosponsored by Senator Akaka, Senator Voinovich, Senator Collins, Senator Landrieu and Senator Lieberman. I hope it can be passed quickly.

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

Mr. President, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are taking a huge toll on our servicemembers and their families. To date, 123 Oregonians have died in those wars, leaving behind grieving friends and families. I'll never forget the pain I've heard in the voices of the Oregon parents I've spoken to after they've lost a son or daughter to war.

These parents are often called ``Gold Star parents'' because, by tradition, they display a Gold Star flag to let the world know of their sacrifice.

Our nation can't lift the burden of their grief. No one can.

However, our nation does commit to recognize the immense sacrifice of Gold Star parents by giving them certain benefits. One of those benefits is a 10-point hiring preference for unmarried Gold Star mothers when they apply for jobs with the federal government.

But I was surprised to learn that this preference cannot be given to Gold Star fathers. This inequity is a relic from the past; an example of the law has not kept up with the times. We can now see that all unmarried Gold Star mothers and fathers deserve to have the federal government recognize their sacrifice equally. That is why I am introducing a bill to update the law.

I learned of this disparity from my friend Steve Ellis of Baker City, Oregon. Steve lost his beloved daughter, Army Corporal Jessica Ann Ellis, when she was killed by a roadside bomb in Baghdad in 2008. Although Steve is a Gold Star father, he would still not be eligible for the benefit under my proposed change because he is married. But he didn't point out this inequity in the law for his own benefit. He did it for future Gold Star fathers. He saw an inequity in the law, and felt it was his duty to try and get it fixed for other Gold Star fathers.

So today I introduce the Jessica Ann Ellis Gold Star Fathers Act as a small legislative fix that will make a big change to federal veterans' preference laws through true equality.

This bill will give any unmarried Gold Star parent, regardless of gender, a 10-point hiring preference when they apply for federal jobs. It will also give the benefit to any unmarried parent of a totally and permanently disabled servicemember.

Gold Star mothers and fathers deserve equal recognition for the loss of a child who bravely made the ultimate sacrifice for his or her country. The Jessica Ann Ellis Gold Star Fathers Act will give them that.

This bill is supported by the American Gold Star Mothers organization, and is cosponsored by Senator Akaka, Senator Voinovich, Senator Collins, Senator Landrieu and Senator Lieberman. I hope it can be passed quickly.

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