Floor Statements

Mr. President, in Oregon, we just honored the return of 2,700 members of the Oregon National Guard's 41st Brigade Combat Team. Although the 41st's service in Iraq was Oregon's biggest single contribution to a war effort since World War II, it is not the only one.

The soldiers of the Oregon National Guard's 162nd Engineer Company are currently clearing roads in Afghanistan. The 1249 Engineer Battalion in Salem, OR, is preparing to deploy to Afghanistan this winter, and about 600 soldiers from Eastern Oregon will be part of the 116th Cavalry when it deploys to Iraq this fall.

I know I will return to the floor of the Senate to talk about the bravery and service of these men and women. But today I want to talk about the often unrecognized other half of these deployments--the military families that support the service members and keep things together at home. The spouses, sons, daughters, parents, grandparents and community supporters who work together and toil alone to pay the bills, get the kids to school, and help find employment while their loved ones are away.

May 8 is Military Families Appreciation Day in Oregon. On this special day, our State honors the dedication and service of military families and veterans who have helped make America's military the strongest the world has ever seen.

Being left behind when a loved one goes to war is not an easy mission. Yet our military families continue to make the difficult sacrifices, and call upon their inner reserves, to nurture family life so that their service member can focus on the business at hand.

Our military spouses are the glue that holds our military families together. They unselfishly give up their husband or wife, their partner and friend to help serve our Nation. They celebrate important events like birthdays, anniversaries, and sometimes a child's first step or first word alone. They assume the difficult role of being both mother and father--shouldering the responsibility of creating and nurturing a loving family environment when their loved one is away. Their strength and determination are examples to the rest of the country.

And to all of the grandparents and friends who step up when our single-parent service members are called to duty, I thank you. You unselfishly answer the Nation's call by caring for our future generation. You help relieve the pressures of military service by making sure our service members' children are safe, happy, and loved. Stand tall, stand proud. You, too, are our unsung heroes.

Finally, I would like to recognize the sons and daughters who grow up in a military family. As the children of America's defenders, they cope with unbelievable circumstances. The smells of shoe polish, starch, and Brasso may remind them of home more than the smells of cookies and apple pie. Their mothers and fathers are called to duty at a moment's notice, and they have no choice but to be strong, even when it hurts to say goodbye. Their contribution to the Nation and personal strength does not go unnoticed. They are our future and represent the best America has to offer.

Today's military family--spouses, sons, daughters, parents, grandparents and community--inspire us through spirit and strength. They proudly wave flags and keep the candles burning as a reminder of those who are gone.

Their dedication reminds us all that the U.S. flag is brilliant indeed; patriotic songs are not just reserved for the fourth of July; that a parting kiss can hold for months; and that shared tears can somehow bring us closer together. They put their own priorities aside. They take care of one another. They take care of America.

So to all military families, I thank you. Thank you for your service to your family, our community, and to our Nation.

Mr. President, along with Senator Grassley, I am introducing as an amendment to the financial reform bill, S. 3217, our bipartisan resolution to amend Senate rules to eliminate secret holds.

The legislation now before the Senate is intended to bring greater openness and accountability to Wall Street and other financial institutions. At the same time the Senate is reforming how financial markets do business, there is no better time for the Senate to reform the process for how the Senate conducts its own business.

Under current Senate rules, it is still possible for Senators to use secret holds to block legislation or nominations from coming to the floor without having to give any reason. There is no openness or accountability to anyone when a Senator places a secret hold.

The Senate should not have a double standard that requires greater openness and accountability on Wall Street while tolerating a practice that keeps both the public and colleagues in the dark with no accountability to anyone.

That is why Senator Grassley and I are offering our bipartisan proposal to end the practice of secret Senate holds as an amendment to the financial reform bill. Because our amendment would eliminate secret holds by amending Senate rules, I hereby give notice of our intent to amend the Senate rules by filing the Wyden-Grassley amendment to S. 3217.

I urge colleagues to support this bipartisan reform of Senate rules.

Mr. President, today I am introducing a package of three bills to improve the administration of U.S. elections. These bills would empower voters--giving them a greater ability to control how and when they participate in the electoral process. Just as technological developments have changed the way people manage everything from their bank accounts to their communication with friends and family, they can also give voters more power to control their involvement in the electoral process. By empowering individual voters, my bills would increase turnout and lower administrative costs, while improving the security and integrity of elections.

As my colleagues know, I am an ardent believer in bipartisanship. One thing both parties agree on is that the states are great laboratories for policy innovation. The bills I am introducing today are prime examples of progress that was pioneered at the state level. It's now time to take that proven success to the national level.

An increasing number of voters across the country now Vote by Mail. In fact, in the 2008 presidential election, one-fifth of ballots nationwide were cast by mail. I am proud to say that the State that blazed the trail for Vote by Mail is my home State of Oregon. There were many steps along this path, but the turning point came in 1996. That year, Oregon conducted its first State-wide primary and general election for a Federal race exclusively by mail. That election, of course, sent me to the U.S. Senate. But that election was not just a success for my campaign, it was a win for the voters of Oregon.

Through the success of Vote by Mail for that special election, folks in Oregon saw that elections could be conducted without long lines, malfunctioning equipment, and the risks of fraud inherent at polling places. The resounding success of that first Vote by Mail, State-wide, Federal election led directly to the passage of a referendum in Oregon on Vote by Mail two years later. In 1998, an overwhelming majority--70 percent--of Oregonians voted to adopt Vote by Mail for all elections. The Vote by Mail system was fully in place for the next election cycle, meaning that since 2000, all Oregon voters have voted exclusively by mail.

The three bills I am introducing today draw upon the success that Oregon has experienced with Vote by Mail and more recently with online voter registration. The first is the Universal Right to Vote by Mail Act. This bill would put into law the fact that every citizen has the right to vote by mail. Under this bill, any voter who requests an absentee ballot would receive one. No longer would arbitrary requirements block voters from choosing to Vote by Mail.

The second bill is the Vote by Mail Act. It would provide grants to states, or smaller jurisdictions, that wish to make the transition to Vote by Mail.

Finally, the Online Voter Registration Act would provide grants to states that wish to implement an online system that would allow voters to register to vote, update voter information, and request an absentee ballot using the internet. In Oregon, Washington, and Arizona, online systems are already working to reduce administrative costs and make it easier for voters to participate in elections.

Ten years of proven results with Oregon's Vote by Mail system has shown that this policy experiment has been a resounding success. Voters in Oregon strongly support Vote by Mail. An academic study conducted in 2005 found that over 80 percent of Oregonians prefer Vote by Mail to conventional polling place elections. Vote by Mail is also a more cost- effective way to run elections. In Oregon, the Elections Division estimated that costs were reduced by 30 percent when Vote by Mail replaced polling place elections.

One of the greatest results that Vote by Mail has had on Oregon's election is that it has increased voter turnout and that's an outcome that every state should want. In the three Presidential elections in Oregon since Vote by Mail was adopted, turnout has been 84 percent--an increase of 6 percent over the three prior Presidential elections. Vote by Mail has an even stronger beneficial impact on turnout for lower- profile elections, such as off-year, municipal, or referenda elections.

Vote by Mail also reduces election fraud. This may sound counter- intuitive to skeptics who believe voting by mail is less secure than voting at a polling place. However, a Vote by Mail system offers many safeguards that are not available in conventional elections. There is a paper trail for each and every vote, and the processing is conducted at a central, secure location that can be viewed by the public. By expanding the voting period--rather than compressing it into one day-- Vote by Mail affords election officials the time to identify problems, fix errors, and investigate any questionable ballots. If the goal of our country's elections is to make sure the voice of every voter is heard clearly and securely, there is no greater tool than Vote by Mail.

Oregon's experience has shown that in a Vote by Mail system fraud is almost non-existent. Every ballot envelope is scrutinized before it is opened, and the voter's signature on it is reviewed to make sure it matches the one on file for the voter. With the longer time period involved--typically about two and a half weeks--in a Vote by Mail election, there is ample opportunity to determine whether a ballot is valid before it is counted and to investigate any allegations of fraud. If a ballot is fraudulent, it never gets counted. That could never happen in a polling place election where, by the time fraud is found, the vote has already been counted and can't be retrieved. Since Oregon converted to exclusive Vote by Mail elections, over 15 million ballots have been cast. During this time, thousands of ballots have been challenged and investigated for allegations of fraud. Thorough investigation of every allegation, however, has revealed only nine instances of vote fraud. There has been absolutely no evidence of any large-scale, systemic vote fraud that some predicted when Vote by Mail was first adopted in Oregon.

Vote by Mail offers additional advantages that may not be readily apparent. For example, on Election Day in 2006, Tillamook County, Oregon, experienced a deluge of 13 inches of rain. Roads were closed, parts of the county

became unreachable, and a State of emergency was declared. Even so, 70 percent of the voters in Tillamook County cast their ballots. Vote by Mail ensured that lack of access to polling places because of a natural disaster on Election Day was no impediment to voting.

It is not only bad weather that can be overcome with Vote by Mail--an illness, caring for a loved one, pregnancy, work, travel, or religious obligations can all keep citizens from exercising their right to vote at a polling place on a one-day election. Vote by Mail trumps all of these obstacles. Such barriers are not an issue in Oregon, but they may prevent voters in 28 states and territories from voting. In those states and territories, voters must meet arbitrary requirements to get an absentee ballot. I believe the decision to obtain an absentee ballot should be made by the voter. I can see no justification for allowing arbitrary, bureaucratic rules to disenfranchise any voter anywhere in America.

I would also note that excuse requirements for obtaining an absentee ballot constitute an unwarranted invasion of voter privacy. All information submitted on an absentee ballot request form becomes part of the public record. There is no reason why voters should be forced to reveal sensitive personal information simply to have the opportunity to vote. I believe all voters should enjoy equal access to mail ballots while having their privacy ensured.

That is why I am introducing the Universal Right to Vote by Mail Act. This bill is, fundamentally, about access and fairness. No citizen should have to miss an election because they have to work, are ill, are caring for a loved one, traveling, or have a religious obligation. When voting for President, Oregonians shouldn't have an advantage over New Yorkers or Virginians. The Universal Right to Vote by Mail Act doesn't force anyone to Vote by Mail, nor does it require states to implement any new voting systems. All States are already required to have an absentee ballot system. This bill merely says all voters should have equal protection in choosing how to participate in elections.

I am also introducing today the Vote by Mail Act of 2010, which would create a three-year, $18 million grant program to help states, or smaller jurisdictions, transition to Vote by Mail systems like the one in Oregon. This bill would not mandate that any state adopt Vote by Mail. However, the bill would provide funding for state or local jurisdictions that choose to take advantage of the benefits that Vote by Mail offers. The bill would provide grants of $2 million dollars to states, or grants of $1 million to smaller jurisdictions, to help pay for the costs of implementing a Vote by Mail system. I believe Vote by Mail can improve elections in any state that adopts it. But rather than simply assume that Vote by Mail delivers benefits, I offer a solution that would provide proof that it does. My bill would instruct the Government Accountability Office to evaluate Vote by Mail and produce a study comparing traditional voting methods with Vote by Mail.

Finally, I am introducing the Online Voter Registration Act to help give voters the ability to register, update voter information, and request absentee ballots using the internet. This bill would empower voters and would reduce administrative costs. In 2008, three quarters of folks in our country reported using the internet, and 87 percent of young adults did so. These are the very people who will be registering to vote for the first time, and they expect the government to accommodate the way they live their lives. But this bill isn't just about making things easier for young adults. The internet is well- suited to this work and can save time, protect voters' privacy, reduce paper, and lower costs. Many States already allow citizens to renew their driver's licenses or register their cars online. Expanding the list of those government services offered online to Voter Registration simply makes sense.

Oregon, Washington, and Arizona have already established online voter registration systems. In the initial election cycle of implementation for Washington's system, the State reported saving over $87,000 in less than a year. Expanding access to online voter registration makes sense, but designing and implementing such systems requires considerable start-up expenses. That's why the Online Voter Registration Act would provide grants of $150,000 to States to help cover the implementation costs.

I would like to thank those who have supported Vote by Mail, including the original cosponsors of the two bills: Senators Kerry, Carper, Cantwell, Merkley, and Gillibrand. I would also like to thank the many organizations that support Vote by Mail, including the National Association of Letter Carriers, National Association of Postmasters, National Association of Postal Supervisors, American Postal Workers Union, National Postal Mail Handlers Union, National Rural Letter Carriers' Association, and other labor organizations including the AFL-CIO and SEIU. Vote by Mail also has the support of many civil rights and elections organizations, including Common Cause, the NAACP, the ACLU, and The League of Rural Voters.

I urge my colleagues to give voters more choice and greater opportunity to participate in elections by supporting these important bills. It's time to move the nation's elections systems into the 21st century and answer the needs of today's voters. These bills are an important step in that direction.

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

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

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

There being no objeciton, the text of the bill was ordered to be

Mr. President, today I am introducing a package of three bills to improve the administration of U.S. elections. These bills would empower voters--giving them a greater ability to control how and when they participate in the electoral process. Just as technological developments have changed the way people manage everything from their bank accounts to their communication with friends and family, they can also give voters more power to control their involvement in the electoral process. By empowering individual voters, my bills would increase turnout and lower administrative costs, while improving the security and integrity of elections.

As my colleagues know, I am an ardent believer in bipartisanship. One thing both parties agree on is that the states are great laboratories for policy innovation. The bills I am introducing today are prime examples of progress that was pioneered at the state level. It's now time to take that proven success to the national level.

An increasing number of voters across the country now Vote by Mail. In fact, in the 2008 presidential election, one-fifth of ballots nationwide were cast by mail. I am proud to say that the State that blazed the trail for Vote by Mail is my home State of Oregon. There were many steps along this path, but the turning point came in 1996. That year, Oregon conducted its first State-wide primary and general election for a Federal race exclusively by mail. That election, of course, sent me to the U.S. Senate. But that election was not just a success for my campaign, it was a win for the voters of Oregon.

Through the success of Vote by Mail for that special election, folks in Oregon saw that elections could be conducted without long lines, malfunctioning equipment, and the risks of fraud inherent at polling places. The resounding success of that first Vote by Mail, State-wide, Federal election led directly to the passage of a referendum in Oregon on Vote by Mail two years later. In 1998, an overwhelming majority--70 percent--of Oregonians voted to adopt Vote by Mail for all elections. The Vote by Mail system was fully in place for the next election cycle, meaning that since 2000, all Oregon voters have voted exclusively by mail.

The three bills I am introducing today draw upon the success that Oregon has experienced with Vote by Mail and more recently with online voter registration. The first is the Universal Right to Vote by Mail Act. This bill would put into law the fact that every citizen has the right to vote by mail. Under this bill, any voter who requests an absentee ballot would receive one. No longer would arbitrary requirements block voters from choosing to Vote by Mail.

The second bill is the Vote by Mail Act. It would provide grants to states, or smaller jurisdictions, that wish to make the transition to Vote by Mail.

Finally, the Online Voter Registration Act would provide grants to states that wish to implement an online system that would allow voters to register to vote, update voter information, and request an absentee ballot using the internet. In Oregon, Washington, and Arizona, online systems are already working to reduce administrative costs and make it easier for voters to participate in elections.

Ten years of proven results with Oregon's Vote by Mail system has shown that this policy experiment has been a resounding success. Voters in Oregon strongly support Vote by Mail. An academic study conducted in 2005 found that over 80 percent of Oregonians prefer Vote by Mail to conventional polling place elections. Vote by Mail is also a more cost- effective way to run elections. In Oregon, the Elections Division estimated that costs were reduced by 30 percent when Vote by Mail replaced polling place elections.

One of the greatest results that Vote by Mail has had on Oregon's election is that it has increased voter turnout and that's an outcome that every state should want. In the three Presidential elections in Oregon since Vote by Mail was adopted, turnout has been 84 percent--an increase of 6 percent over the three prior Presidential elections. Vote by Mail has an even stronger beneficial impact on turnout for lower- profile elections, such as off-year, municipal, or referenda elections.

Vote by Mail also reduces election fraud. This may sound counter- intuitive to skeptics who believe voting by mail is less secure than voting at a polling place. However, a Vote by Mail system offers many safeguards that are not available in conventional elections. There is a paper trail for each and every vote, and the processing is conducted at a central, secure location that can be viewed by the public. By expanding the voting period--rather than compressing it into one day-- Vote by Mail affords election officials the time to identify problems, fix errors, and investigate any questionable ballots. If the goal of our country's elections is to make sure the voice of every voter is heard clearly and securely, there is no greater tool than Vote by Mail.

Oregon's experience has shown that in a Vote by Mail system fraud is almost non-existent. Every ballot envelope is scrutinized before it is opened, and the voter's signature on it is reviewed to make sure it matches the one on file for the voter. With the longer time period involved--typically about two and a half weeks--in a Vote by Mail election, there is ample opportunity to determine whether a ballot is valid before it is counted and to investigate any allegations of fraud. If a ballot is fraudulent, it never gets counted. That could never happen in a polling place election where, by the time fraud is found, the vote has already been counted and can't be retrieved. Since Oregon converted to exclusive Vote by Mail elections, over 15 million ballots have been cast. During this time, thousands of ballots have been challenged and investigated for allegations of fraud. Thorough investigation of every allegation, however, has revealed only nine instances of vote fraud. There has been absolutely no evidence of any large-scale, systemic vote fraud that some predicted when Vote by Mail was first adopted in Oregon.

Vote by Mail offers additional advantages that may not be readily apparent. For example, on Election Day in 2006, Tillamook County, Oregon, experienced a deluge of 13 inches of rain. Roads were closed, parts of the county

became unreachable, and a State of emergency was declared. Even so, 70 percent of the voters in Tillamook County cast their ballots. Vote by Mail ensured that lack of access to polling places because of a natural disaster on Election Day was no impediment to voting.

It is not only bad weather that can be overcome with Vote by Mail--an illness, caring for a loved one, pregnancy, work, travel, or religious obligations can all keep citizens from exercising their right to vote at a polling place on a one-day election. Vote by Mail trumps all of these obstacles. Such barriers are not an issue in Oregon, but they may prevent voters in 28 states and territories from voting. In those states and territories, voters must meet arbitrary requirements to get an absentee ballot. I believe the decision to obtain an absentee ballot should be made by the voter. I can see no justification for allowing arbitrary, bureaucratic rules to disenfranchise any voter anywhere in America.

I would also note that excuse requirements for obtaining an absentee ballot constitute an unwarranted invasion of voter privacy. All information submitted on an absentee ballot request form becomes part of the public record. There is no reason why voters should be forced to reveal sensitive personal information simply to have the opportunity to vote. I believe all voters should enjoy equal access to mail ballots while having their privacy ensured.

That is why I am introducing the Universal Right to Vote by Mail Act. This bill is, fundamentally, about access and fairness. No citizen should have to miss an election because they have to work, are ill, are caring for a loved one, traveling, or have a religious obligation. When voting for President, Oregonians shouldn't have an advantage over New Yorkers or Virginians. The Universal Right to Vote by Mail Act doesn't force anyone to Vote by Mail, nor does it require states to implement any new voting systems. All States are already required to have an absentee ballot system. This bill merely says all voters should have equal protection in choosing how to participate in elections.

I am also introducing today the Vote by Mail Act of 2010, which would create a three-year, $18 million grant program to help states, or smaller jurisdictions, transition to Vote by Mail systems like the one in Oregon. This bill would not mandate that any state adopt Vote by Mail. However, the bill would provide funding for state or local jurisdictions that choose to take advantage of the benefits that Vote by Mail offers. The bill would provide grants of $2 million dollars to states, or grants of $1 million to smaller jurisdictions, to help pay for the costs of implementing a Vote by Mail system. I believe Vote by Mail can improve elections in any state that adopts it. But rather than simply assume that Vote by Mail delivers benefits, I offer a solution that would provide proof that it does. My bill would instruct the Government Accountability Office to evaluate Vote by Mail and produce a study comparing traditional voting methods with Vote by Mail.

Finally, I am introducing the Online Voter Registration Act to help give voters the ability to register, update voter information, and request absentee ballots using the internet. This bill would empower voters and would reduce administrative costs. In 2008, three quarters of folks in our country reported using the internet, and 87 percent of young adults did so. These are the very people who will be registering to vote for the first time, and they expect the government to accommodate the way they live their lives. But this bill isn't just about making things easier for young adults. The internet is well- suited to this work and can save time, protect voters' privacy, reduce paper, and lower costs. Many States already allow citizens to renew their driver's licenses or register their cars online. Expanding the list of those government services offered online to Voter Registration simply makes sense.

Oregon, Washington, and Arizona have already established online voter registration systems. In the initial election cycle of implementation for Washington's system, the State reported saving over $87,000 in less than a year. Expanding access to online voter registration makes sense, but designing and implementing such systems requires considerable start-up expenses. That's why the Online Voter Registration Act would provide grants of $150,000 to States to help cover the implementation costs.

I would like to thank those who have supported Vote by Mail, including the original cosponsors of the two bills: Senators Kerry, Carper, Cantwell, Merkley, and Gillibrand. I would also like to thank the many organizations that support Vote by Mail, including the National Association of Letter Carriers, National Association of Postmasters, National Association of Postal Supervisors, American Postal Workers Union, National Postal Mail Handlers Union, National Rural Letter Carriers' Association, and other labor organizations including the AFL-CIO and SEIU. Vote by Mail also has the support of many civil rights and elections organizations, including Common Cause, the NAACP, the ACLU, and The League of Rural Voters.

I urge my colleagues to give voters more choice and greater opportunity to participate in elections by supporting these important bills. It's time to move the nation's elections systems into the 21st century and answer the needs of today's voters. These bills are an important step in that direction.

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

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

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

There being no objeciton, the text of the bill was ordered to be

Madam President, I wish to pay tribute to Taxpayer Advocate Jane Keating. Ms. Keating will be retiring in April 2010 after 38 years of service to this country.

Former Oregon Governor Tom McCall once said, ``Heroes are not giant statues framed against a red sky. They are people who say, ``This is my community, and it is my responsibility to make it better.'' Jane Keating truly is a hero, for she has devoted much of her life to making the United States and her community better.

Jane Keating began her career with the Internal Revenue Service, IRS, in 1972 as a tax auditor in Los Angeles. Jane held successively responsible managerial positions with the IRS before coming to my home State of Oregon in 1985 as chief of the Taxpayer Service Division.

Because of Jane's outstanding service to the taxpayers, she was selected as the Taxpayer Advocate in August 1996. Jane has led this office with professionalism, integrity, and a sense of dedication to the taxpayers she serves. Her colleagues, her employees, and the public respect Jane for the excellent service she provided for so many years.

It is an honor for me to recognize Ms. Jane Keating for her service to this country and to her community. She is indeed a true Oregon hero.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Small Business Environmental Stewardship Assistance Act of 2010, a companion bill to the legislation introduced in the House by another member of the Oregon delegation, Congressman Schrader. I am pleased to launch this legislation in the Senate and am joined today by Senator Merkley from my home State, as well as Senators Stabenow, Specter, and Harkin.

Trees provide numerous benefits to our communities--from cleaner air to energy efficiency to more beautiful city streets. But trees and green spaces are also good for business and good for green job creation. Beyond the most obvious benefits of trees, studies have shown that businesses thrive in green, attractive, pedestrian-oriented retail environments. And this legislation will help America's small businesses and communities plant trees and enhance those kinds of environments. As a Senator from Oregon--a State that grows many of the trees that beautify cities around our Nation, including some of the very trees that grace the Capitol grounds--I also know how critical jobs in our nursery and landscaping sector can be. In my State, the industry provides 21,000 jobs and helps provide over $2 billion worth of economic activity.

This bill would reauthorize the National Small Business Tree Planting Program, which existed for several years in the 1990s. Between 1991 and 1994, more than 18,000 green industry firms were employed to plant more than 23 million trees across the country through the Small Business Administration program. This program had numerous successes, including in my home State where 109 tree planting

grants were administered between 1991 and 1994. Nearly 11,700 shade, landscape, and riparian area trees were planted.

The program would be authorized at $50 million a year between fiscal years 2011 and 2015. The funding provides grants to State forestry agencies to enable communities to plant trees around retail storefronts, rental housing units, and other public areas. This program requires a 25-percent match for any grant received under the program, including in-kind contributions such as the cost or value of providing care and maintenance for a period of 3 years after planting. Having a match requirement ensures that both private and community investments are made for the installation and care of trees funded by this program Ultimately, this program will lead to healthier, greener more vibrant communities and result in green jobs. I look forward to working with Senate cosponsors, the nursery industry, State foresters, and the bill's other supporters to advance this legislation to the President's desk.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Small Business Environmental Stewardship Assistance Act of 2010, a companion bill to the legislation introduced in the House by another member of the Oregon delegation, Congressman Schrader. I am pleased to launch this legislation in the Senate and am joined today by Senator Merkley from my home State, as well as Senators Stabenow, Specter, and Harkin.

Trees provide numerous benefits to our communities--from cleaner air to energy efficiency to more beautiful city streets. But trees and green spaces are also good for business and good for green job creation. Beyond the most obvious benefits of trees, studies have shown that businesses thrive in green, attractive, pedestrian-oriented retail environments. And this legislation will help America's small businesses and communities plant trees and enhance those kinds of environments. As a Senator from Oregon--a State that grows many of the trees that beautify cities around our Nation, including some of the very trees that grace the Capitol grounds--I also know how critical jobs in our nursery and landscaping sector can be. In my State, the industry provides 21,000 jobs and helps provide over $2 billion worth of economic activity.

This bill would reauthorize the National Small Business Tree Planting Program, which existed for several years in the 1990s. Between 1991 and 1994, more than 18,000 green industry firms were employed to plant more than 23 million trees across the country through the Small Business Administration program. This program had numerous successes, including in my home State where 109 tree planting

grants were administered between 1991 and 1994. Nearly 11,700 shade, landscape, and riparian area trees were planted.

The program would be authorized at $50 million a year between fiscal years 2011 and 2015. The funding provides grants to State forestry agencies to enable communities to plant trees around retail storefronts, rental housing units, and other public areas. This program requires a 25-percent match for any grant received under the program, including in-kind contributions such as the cost or value of providing care and maintenance for a period of 3 years after planting. Having a match requirement ensures that both private and community investments are made for the installation and care of trees funded by this program Ultimately, this program will lead to healthier, greener more vibrant communities and result in green jobs. I look forward to working with Senate cosponsors, the nursery industry, State foresters, and the bill's other supporters to advance this legislation to the President's desk.

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

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

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

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

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

I look forward to working with Senator Murkowski, the fishing community and the bill's other supporters to

advance this legislation to the President's desk.

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

Mr. President, today, my colleague Senator Thune and I are introducing a piece of legislation that will correct a flaw in the Native American Housing and Self-Determination Act of 1996, NAHASDA, that could leave some disabled Native American Veterans having to choose between living with their families or having enough money to survive without them. No veteran should ever be faced with having to make that painful choice. Their service to our nation demands that they be treated with the greatest care, and this bill would help ensure that.

Native Americans serve in the U.S. military at a higher rate, per capita, than any other group. However, if a Native American veteran returns home with injuries suffered in battle, they face additional challenges because of the rules covering tribal lands.

Currently, NAHASDA counts veterans disability payments and survivor benefits as income when determining both eligibility for housing assistance and rental payments. Since virtually the only criteria for receiving public housing assistance on tribal lands is income--and the income levels on tribal lands are historically low--it does not take a large veterans disability payment to make them cross the threshold of being ``too wealthy'' to qualify for tribal housing. And in Indian Country,

alternatives to tribal housing are few and far between.

In addition, because disability payments are based on the level of disability, the larger the sacrifice a soldier has made, the less likely he or she will be able to return to tribal housing. This also means that a soldier who has been disabled could not move in with his family if they receive housing assistance without putting the entire family at risk of losing their housing if the payments would put them above 80 percent of area median income. No family should have to choose between a roof over their head and caring for a wounded son or daughter, father or mother. Nor should they have to choose between living on their native homelands or being forced to move off the reservation to care for this wounded veteran. Yet, this is the Catch-22 that wounded Native American veterans currently face, and it must be fixed.

Our bill would do that, in a very simple way. It would exempt veterans' disability and survivor benefits from counting as ``income'' for tribal housing programs. This does not affect the amount of money Congress appropriates for tribally designated housing entities. It would just allow those programs to serve Native American veterans who have been injured in combat, or the families of those killed on the battlefield. Our bill is a simple, budget-neutral way to fix a law written with the best of intentions. I urge the speedy passage of this bill.

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

Will the Senator yield for a question?

First, let me tell the Senator from Iowa how much I have enjoyed working with him on this. We have had, as incredible as it sounds, a 10-year campaign to try to end secrecy in the Senate, just so people know a little bit about it. I always think when people hear about a hold in the Senate, they probably think it is a hair spray or a wrestling move or something like that. Isn't it correct that a hold, the ability to block a nomination or a piece of legislation, is one of the most powerful tools a Member of the Senate has today to influence policy?

And with respect to transparency, what he and I have focused on all these years, people asked: Are you trying to abolish a hold? I think he and I have said we believe Senators ought to have a right to weigh in on something important. But at a time when the public wants transparency and openness and accountability, a Senator who wants to use what the Senator has said is an extraordinary power, the real public interest is satisfied by that Senator having to disclose promptly that they are imposing a hold; is that correct?

One additional point, is it the Senator's sense, because we have talked about this often as we have been watching the spectacle of all these secret holds, that the central problem is it is triggered too late and it takes too long to kick in? Is that a fair statement of what needs to be changed? We need to get the openness earlier? It needs to be triggered earlier, and it needs to get into the public domain earlier; is that correct?

I express my appreciation to the Senator from Iowa for giving me the opportunity to work with him. He and I have pursued a lot of issues in the past. Very often those issues are part of television news debates and the like. Obviously, the secret hold would not be something on Main Street in Des Moines or Portland that people know about. This is the time to get this right once and for all. We sought to do it literally for a decade. A number of majority leaders, Democratic and Republican, said they wanted to get this done. Yet as of this day, I personally believe it continues to be abused and flagrantly so. At a time when the American people are looking at these challenging economic circumstances, they deserve a government that is truly open, truly accountable, and truly transparent. That has been what has guided our bipartisan efforts over this last decade. I appreciate the Senator coming to the floor this evening. There are not that many opportunities to advance a truly bipartisan agenda. He has given us the opportunity to do that tonight.

I look forward to working with my colleague to once and for all get secret holds abolished in the Senate.

I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. President, to continue this topic, we need to kind of put into perspective a little bit about why this secret hold has become such a detrimental practice. When Willy Sutton was asked why he robbed the bank, he said: That's where the money is. Secret holds are where the power is. Senator Grassley and I have outlined the enormous effect a secret hold can have on a piece of legislation but, frankly, one of the other points that needs to be made is that a secret hold is a very powerful weapon that is available to a lobbyist.

I expect that practically every Senator has gotten a request from a lobbyist asking if the Senator would put a secret hold on a bill or nomination in order to kill it without getting any public debate and without the lobbyist's fingerprints appearing anywhere. If you can get a U.S. Senator to put an anonymous hold on a bill, it is like hitting the lobbyist jackpot. Not only is the Senator protected by a cloak of anonymity but so is the lobbyist.

A secret hold lets lobbyists play both sides of the street and can give lobbyists a victory for their clients without alienating potential or future clients. Given the number of instances where I have heard a lobbyist asking for secret holds, I am of the view that secret holds are a stealth extension of the lobbying world.

In the U.S. Senate, there has been an effort to improve the rules and have stricter ethics requirements with respect to lobbyists. It seems to me it would be the height of irony if the Senate were to adopt a variety of changes to curtail lobbying, as we have done in the past, without doing away with what, in my view, is one of the most powerful tools that can be available to lobbyists.

The overwhelming majority of our citizens, in every corner of the land, be it Alaska or Oregon or Rhode Island, say they want public business done in public. If you walk down the streets of this country, I do not think you could find 1 out of 100 people who would have any idea what a hold is or what a secret hold is all about. But the fact is, these secret holds in the U.S. Senate can dramatically affect and change the lives of our citizens, and our people will not even know about it.

The hold--the ability to block a piece of legislation, block a nomination--cannot even, in a number of instances, end up being discussed on the floor of the Senate. Literally, the Senate will not even get a peek, will not even get the briefest look, at a particular issue that may involve millions of our citizens, billions of dollars, and affect the quality of life of citizens in every corner of the land.

So what this is all about, what Senator Grassley and I have been working for lo, this past decade, what I have heard colleagues talk about--and Senator Whitehouse has spoken eloquently about this--is we believe now is the time, once and for all, to permanently wipe the secret hold off the rulebooks of the Senate.

It is one thing if a Senator exercises the extraordinary power that a hold presents. It is quite another when they cannot be held accountable because they exercise this power in secret. So the average person in America may not know what a secret hold is, but I am very certain they want the Senate to do its business in public.

I want to express my appreciation to Senator Grassley, who has left the floor, for working with me over this past decade to end what I think is a simply inexplicable denial of the public's right to know. That is what this is essentially about. This is a denial of the public's right to know. With colleagues on both sides of the aisle, I am determined to, this time, get this changed, shorten the period, to make it easier to trigger the requirements of public disclosure.

Mr. President, I know my colleague from Rhode Island is interested in getting in this issue. I look forward to his comments and yield the floor.

Or I think there might be a third option, of course, which is to lift the hold. But the Senator has done a very careful and thoughtful analysis of the situation and particularly this situation of what Senator Grassley and I came to call the ``rotating hold,'' simply shifting to another person--something that has been done often over the years by Democrats and Republicans. I think now is the time to get this changed. By the way, the Senator is absolutely correct on the bipartisan nature of the rule change. The vote was 84 to 13. There was overwhelming bipartisan support for it.

The Library of Congress has actually put together a very thoughtful historical analysis featuring the discussion of things such as the ``Mae West'' hold, which came to be known as the ``come look me over'' hold, which I gather was not a full-fledged hold but it might actually blossom into one.

So the Senator is absolutely right about what the choices are. That is why it is time, once and for all, to get this changed. I so appreciate the Senator, and also Senator McCaskill from Missouri, coming and highlighting the fact that this has again gotten out of hand.

The historical analysis of this has been that the hold was something that would be used rarely. The hold was for something of great consequence. Yet now it seems we have these secret holds that are simply thrown out for nominations and pieces of legislation because someone has some modest interest or is carrying out a different agenda, and I think that is why the secrecy is so unfortunate.

I thank my colleague.

The Senator is absolutely right about the fact that 80 secret holds is clearly not what Senator Grassley and I and reformers thought would happen. Given all these secret holds, you would think at the back of the Executive Calendar--which is page 19; it is entitled ``Notice of Intent to Object to Proceeding''--given what the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island has pointed out, one would think that page 19, ``Notice of Intent to Object to Proceeding,'' would be filled with these names if the rule was being honored.

I say to the Senator, both you and I are holding up this page 19 with nary a word on it.

It surely would. I am grateful to the Senator from Rhode Island for prosecuting the reform case. I have talked with Senator Grassley about it, and with Senator McCaskill and the Senator, and I think this is the time.

There are two points with respect to the secret hold: one as it relates to the institution and one as it relates to an individual Senator. With respect to the institution, in this example, the Senator has given us scores of these secret holds. I think this serves to undermine the credibility of the institution at a crucial time in American history. It is no secret Americans are divided on a host of issues.

Well, if the Senate insists on doing so much important business in secret--which is what happens if you honor these secret holds--I think that just undermines the institution. Because I think, first and foremost, you are absolutely right to zero in right now where we have all these secret holds.

Secondly, with respect to an individual Senator, what seems particularly important--the Senator and I share an interest in health care and a variety of economic issues--suppose an individual Senator works for years and years to try to build a bipartisan coalition on an issue and then is done in by an unknown or secret opponent, an unknown, unseen opponent who has been able, in effect, to block all that bipartisan work in secret.

So I want the Senator to know I am four-square behind his efforts to get this changed. Senator Grassley and I have been talking about it. I think there is an opportunity to make this bipartisan.

I will also say, in closing--and the Senator has been kind to give me all this time--I do not think the secret hold passes the smell test of openness in American government. It is time to change it. I look forward to working with my colleague to finally, after all of these years, get this done and send the secret hold off into the dust bin of history.

Mr. President, last year, several of my colleagues and I wrote to Secretary Gates requesting a clear policy through which the Department of Defense would encourage renewable energy development while maintaining necessary protections for military missions. Among other recommendations, to facilitate the development of renewable energy projects consistent with national security needs, we specifically pointed to the Department's need to formally consolidate all decisionmaking into a single office to limit unnecessary conflict between the Department and renewable energy development. At that time, there were a wide array of projects where the Department of Defense had objected very late in the permitting process.

Since that time, conflicts between the siting of renewable energy projects and defense missions have only intensified in scale and now threaten to impede currently planned and permitted renewable energy projects, placing billions of investment dollars and thousands of new U.S. jobs at risk. Recent attempts to work with DOD for various

compromise and alternative solutions, such as expanding current radar capability, has produced few results.

For example, in my State of Oregon, the planned Shepherds Flat Wind Farm would produce more than 850 megawatts of electricity. It would be the largest wind farm in the world. Planners worked with numerous Federal agencies and cleared the project with the Navy. But just a month before groundbreaking, the Air Force halted the project because they believe it could potentially interfere with a radar array in eastern Oregon. Attempts to work with DOD, by the planners and by my office, have met with stiff resistance and no offers of compromise solutions. There is an attitude that resolving conflicts with civilian energy projects is simply not one of DOD's missions. The grim reality is that the Shepherds Flat Wind Farm is only the beginning of the problems in Oregon. The objection to this project will also halt at least 10 other projects in the works totaling over 3,000 megawatts of renewable energy. DOD appears content with the status quo. But status quo doesn't reduce our independence on foreign oil or generate new jobs.

Regrettably, it appears that the Department is not interested in identifying possible solutions. This surprises me given the critical nature of our future renewable energy program and its impact on our Nation's national security. Instead of being a partner in the process, DOD appears content to be a roadblock. It is long past time for the Department to give this issue the attention it requires and work to find solutions instead of just being a problem.

Therefore, until I receive assurance that DOD is taking appropriate action to address the increasing conflict between national renewable energy policy and national defense, I will object to any unanimous consent agreement for the nominations of Sharon E. Burke, to be Director of Operational Energy Plans and Programs at DOD; Katherine Hammack, to be Assistant Secretary of the Army; and Elizabeth A. McGrath, to be Deputy Chief Management Officer at DOD. I place these holds reluctantly. I am hopeful that the Department will take immediate and appropriate action to resolve current renewable energy conflicts and prevent future ones from occurring. Once that happens, I will be able to withdraw my holds so that DOD nominations can once again move through the Senate.

Mr. President, when I have come to the floor over the last few months, I have always tried to focus on ways to bring parties together, both sides to work for common solutions--whether it's health care, the new tax reform bill Senator Gregg and I have introduced, or the Build America Bonds program put together by Senator Thune and I, which has clearly been a huge success in terms of revolutionizing the system for funding transportation and infrastructure. Senator Cornyn and I are working on a significant crime bill. So I am always going to come to this floor and try to be bipartisan and bring both sides together.

On this question of helping folks who are so desperately hurting today--including so many in my State, where we have a very high unemployment rate--I want to suggest a bipartisan path forward that I hope we can look at in the days ahead. I see my friend from Georgia here, who also wants to work on these major economic issues in a bipartisan way.

When you listened to colleagues last night and this morning, it seems to me there is agreement on two fundamental principles. One is that it is absolutely essential to help folks who are hurting now. We have millions of Americans walking on an economic tightrope; balancing their food bill against their fuel bill; trying to pay for essentials; going to bed every night, whether in Colorado, Oregon, or Georgia, figuring out if they are going to be able to pay the bills when they wake up in the morning. So there is agreement on both sides that you have to help folks who are hurting now. There is also agreement that we have to deal with this deficit, and the spending issue which is contributing to the deficit for the long term. So, in effect, we start the possibility of a bipartisan strategy around agreement in two key areas: We have to help folks now who are hurting, and we have to deal with those major deficits, the revenue and spending problems, in the long term.

What there is disagreement on, it seems to me, is the timing of these particular debates. I and others feel very strongly that it is just not right to compound the hurt Americans are suffering, even for a few weeks, even for a few days. That is why we very much want, before we go home, to have this worked out and to get this unemployment benefits extension to them.

We also recognize that getting at this long-term budget issue quickly is a matter of national urgency. I sit on the Budget Committee. We are going to

have a chance to do that in April, within 30 days.

So what you see is, in effect, all of the various ideas with respect to extending unemployment so that folks who are hurting so badly do not go without for a short period of time--a week, 2 weeks, 30 days--a variety of different approaches. All of those time periods are shorter than the time period for when we will have an our opportunity to make tough decisions for the long term that we have heard Democrats and Republicans talking about this morning.

So I hope that we can get back to working in a bipartisan way around those two areas of agreement that will help folks who are hurting now, help them quickly, not have them suffer any more, even for a few additional days, and that we recognize that in April, on the Budget Committee on which I serve, we will have the opportunity to tackle the larger budget issues. We have very strong bipartisan leadership between Senator Conrad and Senator Gregg. A lot of us thought they were right on their debt commission. I supported that, supported it for a long time. So we have an opportunity to make those long-term budget decisions Democrats and Republicans rightly have said are so important, beginning next month. So let's do both. Let's help people who are hurting now and recognize how serious the challenge is with respect to the long term as well.

The only other point I would make with respect to the unemployment extension is a point made by a number of our country's leading economists who are advising both Republicans and Democrats, again, in a bipartisan fashion. Mark Zandi, for example, one of our leading economists who is relied on by individuals of both political parties, has pointed out that for every dollar of unemployment, our country gets $1.64 in return. The folks who are unemployed spend their benefits as quickly as they can get them. They spend them only on essentials. They spend them on the essentials of life.

It is pretty obvious that consumer spending is a very significant part of economic recovery. The economic recovery is obviously fragile. We have so many folks out of work, and those folks and the folks who are worried about losing their jobs put off spending on anything but the most basic needs. So obviously that slowdown in consumer spending also takes a toll on our economy. If we are going to make up for the decline in consumer spending, one obvious way, it seems to me, is to get this extra help to folks who are hurting so badly today in our country.

So it strikes me that the decision to not get help to people immediately is simply illogical. It is bad from the standpoint of economic recovery. It is obviously going to compound the hurt Americans who are out of work are experiencing now, and colleagues on both sides of the aisle have said they don't want that to happen.

So I am very hopeful that even before the end of the day, for the folks who are out of work, who are exhausting their unemployment and COBRA benefits--that there will be discussions here in the Senate to try to make sure folks are not denied the bare minimums that are needed to just get by and not denied even for just a few days. The fact is, these are folks who are making $250, $300 a week. None of them are living a life of leisure. No one can say these folks are somehow, as a result of their benefits, disinclined to find work. They are not part of ``Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous.'' They are the millions who today walk that economic tightrope, always feeling that another big bill is going to push them into the abyss where they cannot afford to pay the rent, cannot afford to pay the utility bill, cannot afford food. It is not right to let these folks suffer.

I would submit that on a matter such as this, which is, in my view, a question of right and wrong, that is what extending unemployment benefits for a short period of time to prevent human suffering is all about, that we stay at this effort so folks who are hurting so badly in our country do not lose out, if even for only a few days. I will be at my post to continue to work and talk with colleagues of both political parties toward that end. We have to stay at it to ensure there is no break in the essential benefits the most vulnerable of our country so desperately needs.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 4957, which was received from the House and is at the desk.

I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read three times and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and that any statements be printed in the Record.

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