Floor Statements

Madam President, the U.S. Senate recently approved a 1- year extension of the expiring provisions of the Patriot Act with a voice vote. The extension was subsequently approved by the House and signed into law by President Obama. As I have argued for years that the Patriot Act is in need of serious reform, I would like to outline the changes I will keep working for as a member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

Many of my colleagues who agree with me that reforms are needed think it would be difficult to have a constructive debate on domestic surveillance in the Senate right now. They think that next year will be a better time to have this debate, and that waiting will lead to a better opportunity to restore the best possible balance between fighting terrorism ferociously and protecting American rights and freedoms.

Personally, I think that the reforms I am outlining today should have been made years ago. But based on the debate on the Patriot Act that took place in the Senate Judiciary Committee last fall, I agree that those of us who believe in reform need to spend more time making our case to our colleagues and the American people. So I will briefly address those reforms that I think are necessary, and the ways that I would like to see this debate move forward between now and next February, when these provisions will come up for renewal again.

The three expiring provisions all involve domestic surveillance in one way or another. One regards the use of roving wiretaps for intelligence purposes, one regards the surveillance of so-called ``lone wolf'' terrorist suspects, and one involves government access to business records. I have cosponsored legislation that would create additional safeguards on the use of roving wiretaps, and I think that it is appropriate to debate whether the ``lone wolf'' statute should be reformed or repealed, particularly given the fact that it has never been used. But it is the business records provision, section 215 of the Patriot Act, which I believe is most in need of reform.

Section 215 of the Patriot Act is referred to as the ``business records'' provision, but it actually covers any personal information that is held by any sort of institution or third party--including banks, hospitals, libraries, and retail stores of all types. And it doesn't just apply to documents; it applies to ``any tangible thing'', which means it covers things like blood or tissue samples as well.

Prior to 9/11, if the FBI or another government agency was conducting an intelligence investigation and wanted to obtain an individual's personal records from the business or institution that was holding them, the government agency had to have evidence indicating that the person whose records they wanted was a terrorist or a spy. Section 215 of the Patriot Act lowered this standard to permit the government to collect any records deemed ``relevant to an investigation''.

``Relevant'' is an incredibly broad standard. In fact, it could potentially permit the government to collect the personal information of large numbers of law-abiding Americans who have no connection to terrorism whatsoever.

As an alternative to ``relevance'', I and other senators have advocated for what I call the ``nexus to terrorism'' standard. Under this standard, the government could use the Patriot Act to obtain any records pertaining to a terrorist suspect, or the suspect's activities, or any individual that the suspect has been in contact with or directly

linked to in any way. This is a much broader standard than the one that existed before 9/11, and it would give the FBI and other government agencies significant flexibility in terrorism investigations. But it is much tighter than the standard that is currently written into law as part of the Patriot Act, and it would greatly reduce potential intrusions on the privacy of law-abiding Americans.

Switching to a ``nexus to terrorism'' standard is not a radical proposal. In 2005, the Senate passed a bill that would have replaced the ``relevance'' standard with one requiring a ``nexus to terrorism''. In fact, this bill was passed by unanimous consent. And President Obama cosponsored similar legislation in 2007. So this proposal has received significant bipartisan support in the past. And in my judgment, it would go a long, long way toward restoring the balance between security and freedom that is so important to Americans.

I have cosponsored legislation that would make ``nexus to terrorism'' the standard for accessing individuals' business records for intelligence purposes. Over the next year, I will continue to argue for the merits of this standard. I will also continue to press for more transparency about how the Patriot Act has actually been interpreted and applied in practice. As I have said before, there is key information that is relevant to the debate on the Patriot Act that is currently classified. Over the past two and a half years, I have pressed the executive branch to declassify this information in a responsible way, so that members of Congress and the public can have an informed debate about what the law should actually be.

I have raised this issue numerous times, in classified letters and in meetings with high-level Administration officials. Many of these classified letters were also signed by other senators, including Senator Feingold and Senator Durbin. In a partial response to our requests, the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence have prepared a classified paper that contains details about how some of the Patriot Act's authorities have actually been used, and this paper is now available to all members of Congress, who can read it in the Intelligence Committee's secure office spaces.

Providing this classified paper to Congress is a good first step, and I would certainly encourage all of my colleagues to come down to the Intelligence Committee and read it, but by itself this step does not go nearly far enough. Ensuring that members of Congress have information about how the law has been interpreted and applied is obviously essential, but it is just as essential for the public to have this information as well. Most members of the public do not expect to have detailed information about how intelligence collection is actually conducted, but they do expect to understand the boundaries of what the law does and does not allow, so that they can ratify or reject the decisions that public officials make on their behalf.

I am particularly concerned about this because I believe that there is a discrepancy between what most Americans believe is legal and what the government is actually doing under the Patriot Act. In my view, any discrepancy of this sort is intolerable and untenable, and can only be fixed by greater transparency and openness. This is why I think it is so important for the executive branch to declassify the information that I have asked them to take action on.

I expect that convincing the executive branch to take decisive action on this issue will not be easy, and that it will not happen quickly. But I have been engaged on this issue for two and a half years already, so I think it should be clear by now that I do not intend to give up. As Congress prepares to resume debate on the Patriot Act next year, I will continue to press the administration to find a way to release this information in a manner that serves the public interest and does not harm national security. And I hope that my colleagues will join me in this effort.

Before he leaves the floor, let me echo the praise for our friend from New Jersey, who has prosecuted the case against cigarettes for so many years. We are thankful to him. What a strong advocate he is.

I thank the chairman as well for all his efforts. I wish to highlight a couple provisions he and I worked on together that speak to the headlines we are seeing in this morning's newspaper; in particular, the provision he and I partnered on that allows States to innovate and take their own fresh approaches in terms of addressing health care challenges. We all read today about how roughly a dozen States are

already challenging the important, recently-signed health care law on the grounds that the individual mandate is unconstitutional. He and I worked very closely together to ensure that States could have a waiver to, in effect, go out and set up their own approach. In fact, counsel to the Senate Finance Committee specifically said, in response to our questions during the markup of health reform, that if a State could meet the general framework of our legislation, it did not have to do it with an individual mandate.

I thank the chairman for stepping up and empowering the States. I want the country to know that under the legislation Chairman Baucus worked on with me, every State does not have to litigate. They can innovate. They can go out and look at fresh approaches to address our health care challenges. That would include doing health reform without an individual mandate. I have followed the discussion on the floor over the last couple days about how somehow reform would Europeanize the health care system. On the contrary, what Chairman Baucus has done, with Section 1332 of the health reform bill, similar to what I sought to do in the legislation I drafted that had bipartisan support, is to send a message to all the States all across the country that we invite them to come up with the kind of fresh, creative ideas that are going to help us hold health care costs down. In fact, the chairman and I spent a lot of time trying to make sure States could tailor their own health insurance exchanges, which would be fresh marketplaces, so that, for example, an approach in Montana or Oregon that folks there thought made sense, could be entirely different than a strategy New York would try on its own. Not only is section 1332 a provision that allows for State innovation, but, as the chairman knows, there is also another approach that our colleague Senator Cantwell came up with that advances similar State innovation, allowing States to set up a basic health care plan.

So my message to these States talking about litigating right now is, why would you say at this point you are going to go out and go to court and sue everybody in sight when, in fact, what the President signed yesterday gives the States the authority to come up with their own approach? Senate Finance Committee counsel is on record as saying that States could pursue their own approach without an individual mandate. I hope--given the amount of attention that is being paid this afternoon to the question of States filing these lawsuits, alleging the law is unconstitutional because of the individual mandate--I hope some of those States will take a look at section 1332 that, in my view, ought to be attractive to elected officials all across the political spectrum who share the view Chairman Baucus and I share; which is, we would like to empower the States.

Another area where innovation is encouraged to occur is the Medicare Advantage provision in our legislation. We have had a lot of discussion on the floor about Medicare Advantage. Having been involved with this program for a number of years, and its predecessors during the days when I was codirector of the Gray Panthers, I wish to offer up to colleagues that not all Medicare Advantage is created equal. Two years ago, we heard testimony in the Senate Finance Committee about some Medicare Advantage products that, as far as I am concerned, are so shoddy and so devoid of consumer protection the people who sold them ought to be in jail. We have taken steps to add consumer protection to the Medicare Advantage Program.

On the other hand, there are very good Medicare Advantage Programs in our part of the country that have been able to win recognition from the Federal Government as high quality plans. In fact, under this legislation, plans that have earned a high quality rating from the Federal Government on the basis of, for example, how they manage chronic conditions, the kinds of screenings they do of a preventive nature, and their responsiveness to member complaints, when they get a high rating from the Federal Government on the basis of such criteria and earn those extra stars, they will get bonus payments. This was an idea the Chairman worked closely with me on when the legislation was advanced by the Finance Committee.

We will probably have further discussions on the floor about Medicare Advantage, but I only come to the floor today to say--for those who are interested in promoting quality; for those who believe that no matter how much you do to contain costs, you also have to beef up quality-- take a look at the work that was done with respect to Medicare Advantage. It acknowledges that not all Medicare Advantage is created equal.

(Mr. MERKLEY assumed the Chair.)

The Presiding Officer in the Senate, who has just joined us, knows that our home State has the largest percentage of folks in Medicare Advantage than any other State in the United States: over 40 percent. They happen to be in good plans with those high ratings I mentioned from the Federal Government. So clearly, our States with high quality are going to be appreciative of this. But so will all the other programs across the land that have similar ratings, and we will have created an incentive for all of those other Medicare Advantage Programs in the years ahead to meet our standards.

I come to the floor briefly this afternoon to point out these two provisions in the bill that promote quality and innovation. First, I hope States will use the provision that creates incentives for them to innovate. Our message ought to be innovate rather than litigate. I hope attorneys general will remember that in the days and weeks ahead.

Second, I hope colleagues will look at the new incentives in this legislation to promote quality in the Medicare Advantage program and beyond because I believe those two provisions in this legislation--that encourage State innovation, that promote quality in the Medicare Program--ought to be widely supported by colleagues on both sides of the aisle in the days ahead.

That is, in my view, the kind of approach that can bring the American people together and help us implement this law in a fashion that is in line with what Americans want: good quality, affordable care, and reform that works for them.

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for this time and particularly for your help on those two provisions that I think ought to appeal to both Republicans and Democrats in the days ahead.

Mr. President, I rise in support of this legislation to modernize our Nation's aviation system and I am especially pleased that it includes Senate Amendment No. 3534 to protect the pristine beauty and quiet of Crater Lake National Park.

This amendment offered by Senator Merkley and I would bring an end to the bureaucratic stalemate that exists between the Federal Aviation Administration and the National Park Service over implementation of the National Parks Air Tour Management Act of 2000.

That act required the FAA and the Park Service to work together in regulating air tours over national parks. Unfortunately, that is not happening. After nearly a decade, these two agencies have yet to complete a single required air tour management plan for those parks with air tours.

Meanwhile, parks where air tours applications are pending are in limbo over whether tours will operate and where. Efforts to provide adequate safeguards to protect the parks' resources have stalled, leaving places such as Oregon's Crater Lake National Park--the 6th oldest national park in the Nation--lingering in needless uncertainty. In short, the law is not working as it was intended and providing no benefit to anyone.

When an air tour company applied last year for permission to fly tours

over Crater Lake National Park, the public outcry in my state and elsewhere was swift and dramatic--and for good reason. Anyone familiar with Crater Lake knows that it is one of the crown jewels of the Nation's system of national parks. It is a place that my constituents care deeply about. It is visited by countless Oregonians and tourists alike every year who come to see its deep-blue lake, dramatic lava flows, towering trees and, perhaps most of all, to experience its quiet.

While we cannot agree on what to do about air tours over every single national park, we can agree that if we are going to ban them anywhere it should be Crater Lake. Such a ban will guarantee future generations the same pristine solitude that exists today.

Since Crater Lake represents one of the few places to escape the din of everyday life, I and many others have serious concerns over what the proposed helicopter over flights would do to that tranquility.

Yet that concern isn't able to be considered by the FAA and the Park Service under the requirements found in the current National Park Air Tour Management Act of 2000. Parks such as Crater Lake must go through the costly and time-consuming process of attempting to craft an air tour management plan before being able to deny an application for air tours. As no such plans have been completed for any park in 10 years, there is little prospect of getting any certainty any time in the near future. This is uncertainty for air tour operators and for parks visitors alike. Will there be over flights or won't there? The way things work now, we'll never know and our treasured parks don't get the certain protection they need.

My amendment would provide needed clarity regarding the responsibilities of the FAA and the National Park Service so that air tour management plans can finally be completed. It will speed implementation of the act by ensuring that air tour management plans are not required at Crater Lake, where it is clear that having them would be unacceptable to park resources or visitor experiences.

I am pleased that Senator Rockefeller has worked with me to include this amendment in the managers' package. I thank my colleagues Senator Merkley who cosponsored this amendment and Senator Alexander who also lent his support. This amendment will help ensure that our parks' resources are protected.

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

Mr. President, we are going to have the leadership discuss the process for moving forward, but I wish to take a minute and talk about one of the important bipartisan provisions in the jobs bill. I think colleagues know it is never hard to get me to focus on the health reform issue, and we are certainly going to be doing a lot of that in the days ahead, but our constituents want us to focus on jobs as well and particularly a jobs effort that is going to work. We have that in the Build America Bonds program. I say to colleagues, the Build America Bonds program has far exceeded even the optimistic projections some of us had for this program.

I have been involved in the development of this program now for 6 years. Senator Thune, on the other side of the aisle, has worked very closely with me. When we started our work on the Build America Bonds program, our hope was that perhaps $4 billion or $5 billion worth of these Build America Bonds would be let. What we have seen is that now close to $80 billion worth of these bonds have been issued. They are literally selling like hotcakes. They have revolutionized municipal finance, and some have projected that perhaps this year $150 billion worth of these Build America Bonds will be sold.

So Build America Bonds work, and they put people in the private sector to work as well. In my home State of Oregon, it has been proven, time and time again, that private investment follows well-targeted public investment. That is what we are seeing with this bipartisan program, and that is why colleagues on both sides of the aisle have proposed expanding it.

I note my good friend, Senator Thune, on the other side of the aisle, is here. He and I have worked hand in hand on this effort because we wanted to have something that would create jobs in our country that was nonpartisan.

The reason Senator Thune and I have worked on this effort in a bipartisan way is we wanted to have something that is common sense, we wanted to have a jobs creation effort that responded to basic needs of our country, and we wanted to see it part of an effort where the private sector takes the lead.

I am particularly appreciative the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee is here, Chairman Baucus. I wish to express my appreciation to him and his staff for their help in this effort. We saw in the Senate Finance Committee--Chairman Baucus is here, he remembers our discussions--our projections for Build America Bonds were pretty modest. The reality blew past those projections almost overnight. The projections for Build America Bonds were a few billion dollars, and we blew past those projections like a bullet train.

Build America Bonds are getting desperately needed funding flowing into local communities, they are creating jobs, and they are helping to strengthen America's infrastructure. Almost $80 billion has been generated. This is in addition to the $80 billion of direct Federal infrastructure spending that has been included in the Recovery Act.

I note that in the HIRE bill there is going to be an effort once again to ensure there is direct support for infrastructure, and we also have this very promising opportunity with the private sector that we have been able to secure with Build America Bonds.

When a project is funded with Build America Bonds, the Federal Government pays a portion of the finance costs. It equals a very small percentage, perhaps a single-digit percentage of the total project cost. The city or State pays almost the entire cost of the project over time.

A project that is funded with direct spending will often have the Federal Government pay 50 percent or 75 percent of the project costs. Some communities need that kind of help to get needed projects off the ground. But when some argued that projects should only be funded with direct spending, I thought it was important to look for other opportunities. That is why Build America Bonds came into existence. It is not possible, given the enormous needs for infrastructure improvements, for roads and bridges and transportation systems, to rely just on direct spending or rely just on bonds. What we ought to do is what we have done here in the Senate on a bipartisan basis; that is, put more options in the tool box for funding infrastructure. Of course, direct spending will be important. What we have seen is Build America Bonds take off as an additional tool.

In my home State, in the Dayton School District, they are using Build America Bonds to employ up to 150 people building and remodeling classrooms. By using Build America Bonds, this small school district in my home State saved an estimated $1.2 million in interest costs.

Up in Washington State, in Grand Coulee, the Coulee Medical Center was able to finance a new hospital building with Build America Bonds, saving more than $7 million in finance costs. They were able to start construction immediately. We had discussion on the floor earlier--are these government jobs? What that project did was put people in the private sector to work--construction workers, plumbers, electricians, tradesmen. Once the building, of course, is completed at the end of the year, doctors and nurses, clerks and

support staff get to work in the new hospital.

Recently, a joint Congressional Budget Office-Joint Tax Committee report highlighted other benefits flowing from Build America Bonds. As my friend Senator Thune, who is in the Chamber, knows about Build America Bonds, this report shows that tax-credit bonds, such as Build America Bonds, can be more effective than tax-exempt bonds. The report also concluded that because the bonds are more attractive to investors, they are more efficient at raising capital.

Once again, Democrats and Republicans have been able to come together in the Senate to advance a fresh approach that saves municipalities time and money and effort that can otherwise be devoted to other priorities.

Aside from the fact that the funds are raised efficiently, they are answering a cry we hear again and again; that is, get the job done quickly. People are frustrated that sometimes it takes eons for government to work out the particular project, particularly in the transportation area. Bond funds need to be spent within 2 years of the date the bond is issued. What that means is money is not just flowing into projects, it is being spent in the short term. People get back to work quickly. You get more bang for your dollar, and that obviously is what Americans are asking for, and Build America Bonds deliver.

Back in the days before these bonds were issued, the market for the traditional, normal municipal bond was just about frozen. It was hard to sell them. Now Build America Bonds have changed that. The private sector is strongly supporting this program. Groups such as the Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers and businesses across the country are saying they need a fresh approach to build infrastructure. Particularly with Build America Bonds, we are now seeing businesses say this is an approach that gives them a long-term boost to what they know they can count on. They can plan new avenues for their businesses when they know there is going to be infrastructure there to support it.

It is not, however, just businesses that are buying Build America Bonds. Nonprofits such as pension funds are finding these bonds are an attractive investment. Nonprofits cannot benefit from the tax credits, but bond issuers can pass on the value of the tax credits in the form of a higher interest rate for Build America Bonds than other types of bonds. By contrast, traditional tax-exempt municipal bonds have not been a good investment for pension funds and other institutional investors that do not pay taxes. What Build America Bonds have been able to do is provide a way for nonprofits to invest in American infrastructure that traditional tax-exempt bonds don't provide.

We are not surprised that Build America Bonds are reinventing the municipal bond market. We were told by people in the private sector, in the States, in the finance community, all across the country, that they thought this was a chance to, in effect, unfreeze the municipal bond market that had been frozen in Illinois, in Oregon, in South Dakota, and across the country. In some cases, these bonds are going to make the difference between whether the infrastructure projects come to fruition. In other cases, they are going to lower the cost of the projects and allow the community to reinvest the savings in other projects.

By any scenario, the Build America Bonds program helps local government, local businesses, and those who rely on them for jobs and dependable infrastructure. In my view, that is exactly what the American people are looking for from their elected officials--something that works, something that is common sense, something that is bipartisan, something with a proven track record. That is, in fact, the Build America Bonds program.

Let me close with one last point. There have been discussions--and we have been in consultation with Chairman Baucus and the Senate Finance Committee staff on this--about financial institutions and whether the fees they are charging are appropriate for the issuance of Build America Bonds. First of all, it has been the position of Chairman Baucus, myself, and others that anybody who tries to take advantage of State and municipal issuers needs to understand that the Senate Finance Committee is going to have a zero tolerance policy--zero tolerance policy--for ripping off the taxpayers. This program is designed to create jobs and make infrastructure funding more efficient and certainly not create any opportunities for somebody to try to skate around the rules and to take advantage of taxpayers.

In the Senate Finance Committee--and I am very appreciative of Chairman Baucus taking this approach. The Congress included a 2-percent limit on the amount of fees issuers of Build America Bonds can charge. In practice, the typical fee, in fact, has been far less than the statutory maximum fee that is allowed.

As the market for Build America Bonds has grown--and I pointed out that it has mushroomed far beyond projections--the fees have kept coming down. They have come down close to the levels currently charged for tax-exempt bonds. With Build America Bonds having become well established--in fact, they now represent 20 percent of the municipal bond market--in our view, there simply is no longer a justification for charging a higher fee.

As the expiration of the Build America Bonds program approaches at the end of the year--and I am very glad the administration has proposed making the program permanent--I intend to keep monitoring the fees charged for issuing the bonds. If some can present the case that it is appropriate to further reduce the statutory cap on fees, I am certainly open to listening to it. I want to make sure every single dime of taxpayer money goes to these bondholders.

I am open to listening to any suggestions and any ideas to make a program that works, a program that Senator Thune and I have worked on together for many months that is working--we are certainly open to ideas for improving on it.

I see my friend from Florida is anxious to speak. I appreciate his desire to talk tonight.

Let's keep focusing--whether it is health care, whether it is transportation, whether it is tax reform--on ideas that bring the Senate together. I wanted to take a few minutes to talk about Build America Bonds specifically tonight. Again, the chairman of the Finance Committee is in the Chamber. I am very appreciative of his support and Senator Grassley's support. As the majority leader, Senator Reid, noted earlier tonight, we have to zero in on jobs. There is no economic multiplier out there like jobs. If you put people to work, as I outlined--construction workers, electricians, plumbers--restaurants make the sandwiches to feed all the men and women who are doing the work. Let's keep coming back to approaches that bring both sides together. I have tried to do that in health care, in tax reform, and certainly in transportation, where Senator Thune and I have been able to team up on something that works and is being used around the country. Let's remember that is what is needed right now when our folks are hurting. When they are looking for approaches that are common sense, that are nonpartisan, we can give them one specifically with the Build America Bonds program.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join today with my colleague from Maine, Senator Snowe, to introduce the Promote Nanotechnology in Schools Act of 2010.

As Co-Chair of the Congressional Nanotechnology Caucus, and former Chair of the Commerce Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Innovation, I have been involved in encouraging the development of nanotechnology for many years. Although I am gratified by the tremendous advancements that have already been achieved in nanotechnology, there are significant hurdles that could prevent the U.S. from realizing the full potential that nanotechnology holds for job creation, economic growth, and international competitiveness.

During this challenging period when the economy is faltering and the government is working to help create jobs, nanotechnology represents an opportunity to provide long-term, well-paid employment for millions of Americans. In fact, the National Nanotechnology Initiative--the Federal Government organization that coordinates nanotechnology research across all Federal agencies--estimates that the global nanotechnology workforce will require 2 million trained workers by 2015. It is estimated that only 20,000 workers are currently employed in this field.

To ensure that many of the needed jobs will be created here in the U.S., it is necessary to provide our students

with the tools that will provide the skills and knowledge that nanotechnology companies need. This is exactly what the Promote Nanotechnology in Schools Act will do.

This act directs the National Science Foundation to establish a grant program that would provide schools, community colleges, 2- and 4-year colleges and universities and other educational institutions with up to $400,000 to purchase nanotechnology education equipment and materials. Schools participating in the program would be required to provide matching funds of at least 1/4 of the amount of the grant.

In my home State, it has been very rewarding to see the technological advances and entrepreneurial success achieved by the Oregon Nanoscience and Microtechnologies Institute, ONAMI. Oregon's first signature research center, ONAMI is a public-private partnership between the State's top research universities, major corporations, and small business entrepreneurs. Working with top scientists and graduate students, and leveraging the nanotechnology equipment available at Oregon's public universities, ONAMI has provided gap funding to 18 start-up businesses, which have created at least 60 new jobs.

While Oregon has been a leader in this arena, it is certainly not alone. Nanotechnology job creation efforts are accelerating in hubs for technology development throughout the country. As Co-Chair of the Congressional Nanotechnology Caucus, I have had the opportunity to talk with innovators and entrepreneurs from nanotechnology companies working in the areas as diverse as energy management, health technology, environmental sciences, advanced computing, textile and material sciences, and many others. What I have heard in common across all of these fields is the need for qualified workers.

If high school and college students are not exposed to nanotechnology, this emerging field will not be able to reach its full potential. Without a qualified workforce that will allow nanotech companies in this country to scale-up, foreign competitors will be able to fill the vacuum in the global marketplace. With the Promote Nanotechnology in Schools Act, this country will put the resources into place that will prepare our students to meet the needs of the emerging nanotech economy.

That is why I want to thank Senator Snowe for joining me in introducing this timely, and much-needed legislation. I also want to acknowledge the support and efforts of the nanotech companies that worked with me and other Members of Congress to help build support for this bill. Finally, I call upon my colleagues to move quickly not only to pass this legislation but also the National Nanotechnology Initiative Amendments Act reauthorization. These important bills will help advance nanotechnology in this country, and protect the U.S.'s position at the forefront of innovation and economic opportunity.

I urge all my colleagues to support innovation and promote entrepreneurial competition by cosponsoring this legislation.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join today with my colleague from Maine, Senator Snowe, to introduce the Promote Nanotechnology in Schools Act of 2010.

As Co-Chair of the Congressional Nanotechnology Caucus, and former Chair of the Commerce Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Innovation, I have been involved in encouraging the development of nanotechnology for many years. Although I am gratified by the tremendous advancements that have already been achieved in nanotechnology, there are significant hurdles that could prevent the U.S. from realizing the full potential that nanotechnology holds for job creation, economic growth, and international competitiveness.

During this challenging period when the economy is faltering and the government is working to help create jobs, nanotechnology represents an opportunity to provide long-term, well-paid employment for millions of Americans. In fact, the National Nanotechnology Initiative--the Federal Government organization that coordinates nanotechnology research across all Federal agencies--estimates that the global nanotechnology workforce will require 2 million trained workers by 2015. It is estimated that only 20,000 workers are currently employed in this field.

To ensure that many of the needed jobs will be created here in the U.S., it is necessary to provide our students

with the tools that will provide the skills and knowledge that nanotechnology companies need. This is exactly what the Promote Nanotechnology in Schools Act will do.

This act directs the National Science Foundation to establish a grant program that would provide schools, community colleges, 2- and 4-year colleges and universities and other educational institutions with up to $400,000 to purchase nanotechnology education equipment and materials. Schools participating in the program would be required to provide matching funds of at least 1/4 of the amount of the grant.

In my home State, it has been very rewarding to see the technological advances and entrepreneurial success achieved by the Oregon Nanoscience and Microtechnologies Institute, ONAMI. Oregon's first signature research center, ONAMI is a public-private partnership between the State's top research universities, major corporations, and small business entrepreneurs. Working with top scientists and graduate students, and leveraging the nanotechnology equipment available at Oregon's public universities, ONAMI has provided gap funding to 18 start-up businesses, which have created at least 60 new jobs.

While Oregon has been a leader in this arena, it is certainly not alone. Nanotechnology job creation efforts are accelerating in hubs for technology development throughout the country. As Co-Chair of the Congressional Nanotechnology Caucus, I have had the opportunity to talk with innovators and entrepreneurs from nanotechnology companies working in the areas as diverse as energy management, health technology, environmental sciences, advanced computing, textile and material sciences, and many others. What I have heard in common across all of these fields is the need for qualified workers.

If high school and college students are not exposed to nanotechnology, this emerging field will not be able to reach its full potential. Without a qualified workforce that will allow nanotech companies in this country to scale-up, foreign competitors will be able to fill the vacuum in the global marketplace. With the Promote Nanotechnology in Schools Act, this country will put the resources into place that will prepare our students to meet the needs of the emerging nanotech economy.

That is why I want to thank Senator Snowe for joining me in introducing this timely, and much-needed legislation. I also want to acknowledge the support and efforts of the nanotech companies that worked with me and other Members of Congress to help build support for this bill. Finally, I call upon my colleagues to move quickly not only to pass this legislation but also the National Nanotechnology Initiative Amendments Act reauthorization. These important bills will help advance nanotechnology in this country, and protect the U.S.'s position at the forefront of innovation and economic opportunity.

I urge all my colleagues to support innovation and promote entrepreneurial competition by cosponsoring this legislation.

Madam President, my colleague and friend, Senator Merkley, has spoken very eloquently about Ben Westlund, and I wanted to echo those thoughts and reflect on Ben's special and unique style and warmth.

All of us who have been around government and politics know the challenge of the early-morning meeting. Folks are a little bit sleep- deprived, they are looking for coffee, and maybe they are just trying to keep their eyes open at 7:30 or 8 a.m. Senator Merkley and I want to tell you a little bit about how Ben Westlund handled those meetings. Ben Westlund was able to master, like everything else, the challenge of the early-morning meeting in government. I am sure Senator Merkley remembers that even at that early hour, Ben Westlund would bound to the podium--would not walk, he would bound to the podium--and at the top of his lungs, Ben Westlund would shout: Good morning, Oregon. Good morning, folks. How are you doing? And within a matter of seconds, as Senator Merkley remembers, the entire room would be smiling and everybody would feel like attacking the challenge of the day. That was Ben Westlund.

As Senator Merkley noted, he was always on the offensive against injustice, always speaking out, for example, on health care.

Ben Westlund lived his life in full view. He shared his battle with cancer with his colleagues in the State legislature because he wanted everybody to know what it was like to try to wrestle with an illness.

He always made the point that he had all of these friends. One of our colleagues, Alan Bates, for example, was there for Ben, and Ben would always say: What would it have been like without Alan Bates? I have so many advantages other people did not have. And that was Ben, always sticking up for others.

He and I were trading calls before he passed--I think Senator Merkley will identify with this--because I think Ben was prepared to give me heck, and maybe a little stronger, on a couple of the provisions in the tax legislation that I just introduced with Senator Gregg. Ben was our treasurer. He had mastered the Tax Code in and out. I was trying to reach him because I knew that, invariably, Ben Westlund would be right, he would give us good input, and his thoughts would come directly from the people of Oregon. That was Ben Westlund.

Both of Oregon's U.S. Senators are going to deeply miss this wonderful man, his good counsel, and his companionship. We wanted to take a couple of minutes this morning to note that Oregon has lost a special person, a special person who did so much for our State and did a lot for our country as well.

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

Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to right a bureaucratic wrong that has prevented capable and qualified veterans from serving their home States as work-study students in Congressional offices.

For years, veterans have served in the office of their representative or senator as a vital part of an office's constituent service efforts. These student veterans gain employment experience while providing valuable expertise to our offices. Student veterans work together with our staffs to assist other veterans from their home State wade through the often confusing and lengthy process of receiving benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs. Congressional offices benefit by providing better services to their constituents without having to hire a disproportionate number of people to assist with veterans affairs. Veteran work-study students also benefit the VA by shouldering up-front some of the administrative burdens of claims processing.

Congressional offices have served as qualified work sites for VA work-study students for over 25 years. Student veterans have worked in congressional offices during my time in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. In recent months, however, Oregon congressional offices were notified that they would no longer be eligible sites for VA work-study programs.

I am deeply troubled that the proud tradition of student veterans serving fellow veterans in Oregon congressional offices is in jeopardy. At a time when the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have increased the number of veterans seeking our help with VA benefits and services, the instability of the program is particularly unfortunate. Moreover, my concerns are heightened due to the reduction in work-study positions available to Oregon veterans during an economic recession that has sent unemployment rates over 12 percent in some areas.

I share the VA's hope to provide high quality, prompt, and seamless service to veterans and their dependents, through the VA work-study program. That is why I am introducing legislation today to return these talented student veterans to Congressional offices. These student veterans provide an invaluable resource to our staffs. I hope that we are able to pass this legislation quickly to provide valuable employment opportunities for our Nation's veterans.

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

Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to right a bureaucratic wrong that has prevented capable and qualified veterans from serving their home States as work-study students in Congressional offices.

For years, veterans have served in the office of their representative or senator as a vital part of an office's constituent service efforts. These student veterans gain employment experience while providing valuable expertise to our offices. Student veterans work together with our staffs to assist other veterans from their home State wade through the often confusing and lengthy process of receiving benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs. Congressional offices benefit by providing better services to their constituents without having to hire a disproportionate number of people to assist with veterans affairs. Veteran work-study students also benefit the VA by shouldering up-front some of the administrative burdens of claims processing.

Congressional offices have served as qualified work sites for VA work-study students for over 25 years. Student veterans have worked in congressional offices during my time in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. In recent months, however, Oregon congressional offices were notified that they would no longer be eligible sites for VA work-study programs.

I am deeply troubled that the proud tradition of student veterans serving fellow veterans in Oregon congressional offices is in jeopardy. At a time when the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have increased the number of veterans seeking our help with VA benefits and services, the instability of the program is particularly unfortunate. Moreover, my concerns are heightened due to the reduction in work-study positions available to Oregon veterans during an economic recession that has sent unemployment rates over 12 percent in some areas.

I share the VA's hope to provide high quality, prompt, and seamless service to veterans and their dependents, through the VA work-study program. That is why I am introducing legislation today to return these talented student veterans to Congressional offices. These student veterans provide an invaluable resource to our staffs. I hope that we are able to pass this legislation quickly to provide valuable employment opportunities for our Nation's veterans.

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

Madam President, I would like to take a moment to praise the courage and commitment of a small community in Oregon.

Grant County is home to just 7,500 people. It is located in rural eastern Oregon. The county is larger than some States. With majestic mountains, rivers, and valleys, its beauty is unprecedented. Those who live there are proud of their home. They work hard and they watch out for each other. Last month, they proved it in a way that should make everyone proud to be an American.

A few weeks ago, a man came to town calling himself the national director of the Aryan Nations, one of the most infamous hate groups in America. He declared that he was looking for a place for a national headquarters and that Grant County would be perfect. Amazingly, he said the values of his organization and the values of Grant County were the same.

He couldn't have been more wrong.

Since the local newspaper, the Blue Mountain Eagle, reported on his visit, Grant County has risen as one to show this man that there is no way that their home is going to be the headquarters for hate.

To express their outrage, the residents of Grant County stood on street corners in the city of John Day waving flags and holding signs making it clear that the Aryan Nations was not welcome. The people of Grant County stood together in supporting diversity and tolerance in their community. All over the county, green ribbons symbolizing their support for equality streamed from car antennas, hung from fences, and pinned proudly to their clothes. Signs are in businesses and homes. Cars are emblazoned with messages of support for their community and opposition to hatred.

More than 1,000 people jammed into two public meetings held on February 26. They were there to learn how to make sure the Aryan Nations would not succeed. There were so many that the meeting room couldn't hold them all. You know there is something special going on when one out of every six residents of a small rural county comes, to learn how to protect their community from a group who would destroy it. Since then, the Grant County Human Rights Coalition has been formed. It is a remarkable group of people, all working to make their home a better place.

The people of Grant County have shown us all what a community looks like. As an Oregonian and as their U.S. Senator, I could not be more proud of them.

Mr. President, along with Senators Cantwell, Mikulski, Cardin, Dodd, and Merkley, I am reintroducing legislation that will repeal the authority granted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, FERC, in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to site Liquified Natural Gas, LNG, terminals. Prior to enactment of these changes,

States, such as Oregon, had authority to site these large energy facilities--a right that was preempted by the 2005 act. At the time, 45 Senators went on record saying that cutting State siting agencies out of the LNG siting process was a bad idea.

As citizens and their public officials in my State and those of my colleagues can attest, putting FERC in the driver's seat for LNG siting has been a colossal mistake. Rather than address the critical environmental and economic questions of whether these large, potentially dangerous natural gas storage facilities are even needed or whether energy supplies could be provided with less environmental impact and risk, FERC has taken the attitude that it's not its job to make such decisions. The result is the worst of all possible public policy worlds where FERC refuses to address the tough questions and the law limits the ability of our States to step where FERC fails.

Right now, in Oregon, we have three separate LNG projects. Two of those have been approved by FERC over the objections of citizens and State officials and one is still pending. Together, they would have a combined capacity of 3.3 billion cubic feet, BCF, of gas per day. Yet, the States of Oregon and Washington, together, only use 1.33 BCF per day. Natural gas prices in North America have significantly declined and supplies have increased since these projects were proposed. Yet, FERC categorically refuses to address the basic question of whether the three proposed facilities are even needed to serve our market. FERC also refuses to consider whether any of the competing interstate pipeline proposals to bring natural gas to Oregon from the Rocky Mountains would be a better option. In fact, FERC asserts that it is not its job to determine which, if any, of these proposals best serves our market.

While the new chairman of FERC--Jon Wellinghoff--has been willing to vote against LNG siting proposals, the truth is that FERC continues to plow ahead with siting decisions that make no economic sense and which endanger forest lands, farms, vineyards, and residential neighborhoods. Given FERC's record, my colleagues and I believe that it is essential that Congress restore the local and State role in these critical decisions about where, and even whether, LNG facilities and the pipelines that connect them are to be built.

The legislative language is identical to the bill I introduced in the last Congress--S. 2822--and which garnered the support of a number of my colleagues including then-Senator Barack Obama. That bill was needed then, and it is needed now. I am going to be calling on the President for his help in fixing this serious mistake.

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

Mr. President, along with Senators Cantwell, Mikulski, Cardin, Dodd, and Merkley, I am reintroducing legislation that will repeal the authority granted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, FERC, in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to site Liquified Natural Gas, LNG, terminals. Prior to enactment of these changes,

States, such as Oregon, had authority to site these large energy facilities--a right that was preempted by the 2005 act. At the time, 45 Senators went on record saying that cutting State siting agencies out of the LNG siting process was a bad idea.

As citizens and their public officials in my State and those of my colleagues can attest, putting FERC in the driver's seat for LNG siting has been a colossal mistake. Rather than address the critical environmental and economic questions of whether these large, potentially dangerous natural gas storage facilities are even needed or whether energy supplies could be provided with less environmental impact and risk, FERC has taken the attitude that it's not its job to make such decisions. The result is the worst of all possible public policy worlds where FERC refuses to address the tough questions and the law limits the ability of our States to step where FERC fails.

Right now, in Oregon, we have three separate LNG projects. Two of those have been approved by FERC over the objections of citizens and State officials and one is still pending. Together, they would have a combined capacity of 3.3 billion cubic feet, BCF, of gas per day. Yet, the States of Oregon and Washington, together, only use 1.33 BCF per day. Natural gas prices in North America have significantly declined and supplies have increased since these projects were proposed. Yet, FERC categorically refuses to address the basic question of whether the three proposed facilities are even needed to serve our market. FERC also refuses to consider whether any of the competing interstate pipeline proposals to bring natural gas to Oregon from the Rocky Mountains would be a better option. In fact, FERC asserts that it is not its job to determine which, if any, of these proposals best serves our market.

While the new chairman of FERC--Jon Wellinghoff--has been willing to vote against LNG siting proposals, the truth is that FERC continues to plow ahead with siting decisions that make no economic sense and which endanger forest lands, farms, vineyards, and residential neighborhoods. Given FERC's record, my colleagues and I believe that it is essential that Congress restore the local and State role in these critical decisions about where, and even whether, LNG facilities and the pipelines that connect them are to be built.

The legislative language is identical to the bill I introduced in the last Congress--S. 2822--and which garnered the support of a number of my colleagues including then-Senator Barack Obama. That bill was needed then, and it is needed now. I am going to be calling on the President for his help in fixing this serious mistake.

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

Mr. President, consistent with Senate standing orders and my policy of publishing in the Congressional Record a statement whenever I place a hold on legislation, I am announcing my intention to object to any unanimous consent request to proceed to legislation extending any expiring laws that does not include extension of unemployment benefits and COBRA health insurance benefits.

Last night, there was an attempt to extend some laws that expire at the end of the month without extending the enhanced unemployment insurance and COBRA health insurance benefits that were enacted as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. I objected to that attempt.

I did so because Oregon currently has one of the highest unemployment rates in the Nation with an unemployment rate of 11 percent. Extension of unemployment benefits is critical for many unemployed Oregonians who are in jeopardy of running out of benefits if they are not extended before the end of this month. What's worse, many jobless Oregonians and unemployed workers in other States lose their health benefits when they lose their jobs, leaving them without either income or health care. In order to ensure unemployed workers in Oregon and other States will not be left without these critical, lifeline benefits, I am announcing my objection to any unanimous consent to extend other expiring laws, unless extension of unemployment benefits and COBRA benefits are included as part of the legislation.

I have no objection to the Senate proceeding to H.R. 4213 to provide for certain extenders because extension of unemployment and COBRA benefits are included as part of that legislation.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for up to 20 minutes.

Mr. President, after holding 20 townhall meetings in my home State of Oregon over the past month, I can certainly report that people are hungry for good economic news, particularly news about job creation growing our economy. Our people want fresh ideas that work, and clearly they are saying, and saying passionately, that it is time to set aside government that doesn't work for them.

That is why I am proud to come to the floor this afternoon and talk about a positive economic development--a development that has far exceeded the projections and the hopes of those who advocated for it-- and that is the Build America Bonds program. Build America Bonds works, and it works because it puts our people to work at good-paying, family- wage jobs.

Mr. President, when I started working on Build America Bonds about 6 years ago with a number of colleagues on the other side of the aisle, it was because I believed there was bipartisan support for shoring up our Nation's crumbling infrastructure and, at the same time, getting our economy back to work. It is a fact that investing in infrastructure, dollar for dollar, is one of the best economic multipliers we have in our country, and it is a way to jump-start economic growth.

As communities deal with the recession, I and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to give our communities new tools to finance essential construction projects. What Build America Bonds has always been about is not taking any of the tools out of the toolbox we have today, but putting in some additional ones for our communities. Build America Bonds is certainly not a replacement for direct Federal spending on infrastructure, but I think all people who have looked at this subject understand the need is so great for roads and bridges and water systems and schools that we ought to be looking for all cost- effective, efficient ways to fund this essential infrastructure that does have bipartisan support in the Senate.

To report, we thought that maybe getting the Build America Bonds Program off the ground would result in somewhere in the vicinity of $5 to $10 billion worth of additional investment in infrastructure. The program was authorized as part of the stimulus legislation. It did not get off the ground until the middle of the next year, and my colleagues and I thought perhaps the $5 to $10 billion of Build America Bonds that were authorized would allow us to make the case that when the program expires at the end of this year we could call for its renewal.

When the year wrapped up, the figures showed that almost $64 billion worth of Build America Bonds had been issued. In fact, a number of independent experts say that Build America Bonds are now the hottest, most attractive vehicle in the municipal bond market.

In my home State of Oregon, it has been proven time and time again that private money follows public investment. People get back to work building a bridge, for example, and all the businesses near the construction site get more activity from the people who need their services. Once the project is finished, private investment follows the public investment. That bridge makes it easier for folks to get to work or take their kids to school, and communities grow.

As I mentioned, this bill has a long bipartisan lineage. Then-Senator Talent joined with me about 6 years ago for this program. The program would have created a Federal tax credit bonding program to fund investment in transportation infrastructure. Since then, our colleague Senator Thune and four others on both sides of the aisle have joined us to make sure the Senate was on record as saying we can find sensible, commonsense, nonpartisan solutions that address the basic needs this country has to a great extent overlooked.

I have mentioned to date more than $60 billion worth of these innovative bonds have funded hundreds of projects in 39 States--fixing our roads and bridges, rebuilding our schools, upgrading our utilities. These are projects that have been funded, I advise my

good friend from Delaware, because we had a lot of discussion about exactly what works in infrastructure and what does not.

On top of this $60 billion of Build America Bonds infrastructure investment, we have seen $80 billion of direct Federal infrastructure spending that was included in the Recovery Act. So you have a one-two punch now for the first time to mobilize all possible resources to fund infrastructure. You have a significant investment in what is called direct spending. I particularly appreciate what a number of my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee have done in this area, particularly Senator Murray, who has championed our cause in the Pacific Northwest with respect to infrastructure. Senator Harkin, the chairman of the Pensions and Labor Committee, also has done a great job in school construction.

I want it understood that those of us who support Build America Bonds see the bonds as a complement to the outstanding work a number of my colleagues whom I have mentioned are doing. This is not to supplant that kind of direct spending effort but to shore it up, to offer additional assistance, particularly additional assistance when the need is so great.

As our proposal was developed, we had an opportunity to work with Chairman Baucus and Senator Grassley, the chair and ranking minority member on the Finance Committee, because we wanted to make sure this effort continued to be bipartisan at every step of the way. I am very grateful that Chairman Baucus and Senator Grassley in effect gave us a chance to jump-start this idea, to get it off the ground.

The reality is, I suggest to my colleague from Delaware, the Federal Government has never bonded in the transportation area. A lot of States and communities wonder if they would even exist without bonds, but the Federal Government had never bonded in the transportation area. We, our bipartisan coalition, believed a tax credit bond could be especially effective. But because Chairman Baucus and Senator Grassley were willing to bet on our bipartisan coalition, our coalition that said Build America Bonds are going to be an efficient tool, we saw all the predictions for the success of this program exceeded. The reality of Build America Bonds blew past the predictions like a bullet train. Build America Bonds sold like hotcakes, getting desperately needed funding going into local communities, creating jobs, and helping to strengthen our infrastructure.

As I have suggested, anyone concerned that in some way this bond program would displace current assistance on infrastructure ought to look at the numbers I have cited. Under the Recovery Act, there was $80 billion for direct Federal infrastructure spending. It has been spent on infrastructure or will be spent within the next year. And Build America Bonds were sold on top of that assistance.

Here are some examples of Build America Bonds quickly putting folks to work. In Oregon's Dayton school district, they used Build America Bonds to employ up to 150 people building and remodeling classrooms. By using Build America Bonds, the school district saved an estimated $1.2 million in interest costs. It is a small school district. Those kinds of savings make a difference.

Communities in Wisconsin have also used Build America Bonds. One small community used them to lower their financing costs by 2.3 percent, allowing them to turn plans to upgrade roads, sewers, and buildings into reality. One of their leaders told Business Week magazine that without Build America Bonds, ``some projects might not be done'' and ``there would be less employment.''

Recently a CBO/Joint Tax Committee report highlighted a number of other benefits from Build America Bonds. CBO and the Joint Tax Committee found that tax credit bonds, like our Build America Bonds, are more cost effective than tax-exempt bonds. The report also concludes that because the bonds are more attractive to investors, they are more efficient at raising capital. This saves municipalities time and money and effort that can be spent on other priorities. Aside from the fact that the funds are raised efficiently, what I have heard again and again--and I think this is what colleagues are going to be looking at when it comes to infrastructure investment--Build America Bonds get the job done quickly. Because they have to adhere to Federal spending guidelines, all of the bond funds have to be spent within 2 years of the date the bond is issued. This means that money is not just flowing into projects, it is being spent in the short term, paying to build roads and bridges and other infrastructure and putting folks back to work quickly. That is the kind of bang for our buck that Americans are hungry for right now. That is what Build America Bonds deliver.

Back in the days before Build America Bonds were issued, the market for normal municipal bonds was almost frozen. It was very hard to sell municipal bonds. It certainly didn't mean the need for financing infrastructure was not there, it was just very hard to get them through the traditional bond market. Build America Bonds have changed that. The private sector, folks who represent the country's largest businesses-- the Chamber of Commerce and National Association of Manufacturers--have been strong supporters of it. Many of the labor groups, the trades in particular, have been supportive of it because clearly business and working families need a working infrastructure to give businesses the security they need to think long term about their future.

But it is not just businesses that buy Build America Bonds. Nonprofits, like pension funds, have also found Build America Bonds an attractive investment. Although nonprofits cannot benefit from the tax credits, bond issuers can pass on the value of the tax credits in the form of a higher interest rate for Build America Bonds than other types of bonds. By contrast, traditional tax-exempt municipal bonds are not a good investment for pension funds and other institutional investors that do not pay taxes. So Build America Bonds are especially attractive as a way for nonprofits to invest in American infrastructure that traditional tax-exempt bonds do not provide.

I am not surprised, and I think the judgment I have made would be shared by colleagues on the other side of the aisle because a lot of them have been involved over these last 6 years--we are not surprised that Build America Bonds are reinventing the municipal bond market. They have been a good deal for our communities and for all types of investors. They have freed up financing for badly needed infrastructure construction and ensured long-term economic growth. In some cases these bonds, according to people in communities across this country, make the difference between whether infrastructure projects are actually going to get done. In other cases they lower the cost of the projects and allow communities to reinvestment those savings in other projects.

By any scenario you look at with respect to this program, this is one that helps local governments, local businesses, and the people who rely on infrastructure for jobs and economic security. My view is that is exactly the kind of solution folks are asking for from the Congress at this time. It is fine to speculate about programs you wish to have considered and you will look at down the road to see if they actually produce. The Obama administration now wants to make Build America Bonds permanent because they have seen the extraordinary response our country is demonstrating. Build America Bonds have produced, and they have produced exactly what was intended: a prompt infrastructure investment in an efficient fashion.

I express my appreciation to Chairman Baucus. Under his leadership the Finance Committee, on which I am honored to serve, is currently looking at expanding and improving Build America Bonds in the upcoming jobs bill. I told Secretary Geithner this morning that I had appreciated his leadership and the administration's leadership on this issue.

We have some questions about how to proceed--for example, whether, as I would like, Build America Bonds should be devoted to new job creation as opposed to assistance for operating expenses and other areas. But the bottom line is those are the kinds of issues that Democrats and Republicans here in the Senate can take on in a bipartisan way. What we know is we have something that is working, that is making a difference in this critical infrastructure area, and that literally

has 6 years worth of bipartisan history where Democrats and Republicans have come together on an issue that is extraordinarily important to our Nation.

If we keep working together on good ideas such as Build America Bonds, by the time the current economic storm passes our country's infrastructure will be finally ready to support a strong, healthy economy that lies ahead for our Nation.

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

Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce legislation to help encourage Haitian economic development, by promoting U.S.- Haitian trade and investment. The legislation, the Renewing Hope for Haitian Trade and Investment Act of 2010, would in part renew provisions of U.S. trade law that are currently scheduled to expire and which have been critical to the growth of the Haitian apparel sector, which sustains tens of thousands of jobs in Haiti.

Apparel is a core industry sector in Haiti, accounting for an estimated 25,000 jobs and 75-80 percent of Haiti's export earnings.

The devastating January 12 earthquake in Haiti caused widespread damage to the industry. The damage has caused transportation and assembly production bottlenecks, and compounded existing challenges such as lack of industrial space, poor road and port conditions, unreliable electricity, and the high cost of capital.

As of January 2010, Haiti's apparel industry is reportedly running at 50 percent of capacity as a result of the earthquake. Producers hope to increase production to 70 percent of capacity in the next 4-6 weeks, depending on improvements to electricity and water supplies.

Most apparel imports from Haiti come into the U.S. free of duties, because of provisions in the Caribbean Basin Trade Partnership Act, CBTPA. Unfortunately, these provisions expire in September of this year. This expiration is dampening interest in placing additional apparel orders, so it is critical that Congress extend this important program, and do so expeditiously. The Renewing Hope for Haitian Trade and Investment Act of 2010 would extend CBTPA for an additional 3 years.

Increasingly, producers are using a new program called the Hemispheric Opportunity through Partnership Encouragement, HOPE, program to send Haitian apparel to the U.S. free of duty. While utilization of this program, which began in 2006, is growing, it faced early challenges and has since been amended. The amendments have been helpful, but extending this program would help send a signal to potential investors to go into Haiti and build the factories that will employ hundreds or thousands more Haitian workers. The Renewing Hope for Haitian Trade and Investment Act would ``restart the clock'' on the HOPE program and extend it through 2022.

Furthermore, a challenging investment climate and cumbersome Customs procedures for moving goods in and out of Haiti are imposing significant challenges to private-sector Haitian producers. The Renewing Hope for Haitian Trade and Investment Act would help in these areas, too.

Over the past few weeks, I have reached out to a broad group of stakeholders in order to identify the near-term challenges that face Haiti's apparel production industry. We focused on identifying short- term constraints that exist because of the January earthquake. I look forward to continuing to work with these stakeholders going forward in order to ensure quick passage of a bill that has a maximum amount of consensus between U.S. and Haitian producers, non-governmental organizations, and others.

I would particularly like to acknowledge the leadership of Senator Bill Nelson on this proposal. His keen understanding of Haiti and how U.S. trade laws work to help Haitian economic development was critical to constructing this legislation. I look forward to working with Senators Nelson, Baucus, Grassley, and Chairmen Rangel and Levin on this proposal and other ideas to spur Haiti's economy. Each of these members is a vociferous champion of Haitian economic development, promoted in part by thoughtful trade and investment policies.

I encourage all my colleagues to join in supporting this critical legislation to help Haitians who were flattened both economically and literally by last month's earthquake get back on their feet.