Floor Statements

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on Water and Power of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Thursday, June 6, 2013, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of this oversight hearing is to examine the progress made by Native Hawaiians toward stated goals of the Hawaiian Homelands Commission Act.

Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record may do so by sending it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, D.C. 20510-6150, or by e-mail to danielle_deraney@energy .senate.gov.

For further information, please contact Cisco Minthorn at (202) 224- 4756 or Danielle Deraney at (202) 224-1219.

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

The hearing will be held on Thursday, June 6, 2013, at 9:30 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of the hearing is to review the programs and activities of the Department of the Interior.

Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, 304 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510-6150, or by email to [email protected].

For further information, please contact David Brooks (202) 224-9863 or John Assini (202) 224-9313.

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

The hearing will be held on Tuesday, June 4, 2013, at 10 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of this hearing is to explore wildland fire management.

Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, 304 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510-6150, or by email to [email protected].

For further information, please contact Meghan Conklin (202) 224-8046 or John Assini (202) 224-9313.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate will be voting on the confirmation of Judge Michael McShane today to serve as U.S. district court judge for the District of Oregon.

Judge McShane is a product of the judicial selection committee that I have organized at home in Oregon. Senator Merkley has been in full support of this effort. Judge McShane is coming forward for consideration by the Senate as a result of the work of that special judicial selection committee made up of individuals with a variety of different philosophical views, and I am very pleased that the President has seen fit to send Judge McShane's name to the Senate.

In a sentence, Judge McShane has a heart for people, a head for the law, and a high-minded sense of justice. I start by way of saying he certainly has outstanding academic credentials. He was a magna cum laude graduate from Gonzaga University. He attended the Northwestern School of Law at Lewis and Clark College where he graduated in the top 10 percent of his class, and his accomplishments in the courtroom have earned him very high ratings by the American Bar Association.

From an academic standpoint, Judge McShane is clearly qualified for this position. What I feel particularly strongly about--and what was evidently very important to our judicial selection committee--is that he has been an extraordinary member of our community.

He always steps up when asked to help his community. For instance, he stepped up when he was called and asked to be an advocate for inner- city and HIV-positive youngsters. While in these various leadership and volunteer roles, he has always come forward, not just to help but also to come up with innovative approaches in terms of his work with kids. We especially see this in his advocacy for at-risk youngsters in the Job Corps Program.

Judge McShane brings these young people into his courtroom as interns to help with the day-to-day operations where they are given the opportunity to see the inner workings of our judicial system. In many instances Judge McShane literally guides them through the process and sets about to make it possible for them to be involved in ways we normally would not think of when we are looking at the role of a judge.

For example, in many cases Judge McShane buys sport coats and khakis for these youngsters who might otherwise feel uncomfortable in a courtroom setting. Judge McShane, in his own words, has been known to say: I want to make sure those young people have a chance to ``blossom.'' Those are the words he uses. He makes it possible for them to get the sport coats and khakis with his own money so they can participate in this unique training.

This past year he was awarded the 2012 Oregon State Bar President's Public Service Award for his service to the community. He is involved in the Northwestern School of Law mentoring program, and in 2009 he was named the law school's Mentor of the Year.

Also, through the classroom law project Judge McShane presides over Summer Law Camp for inner-city kids. On top of that, Judge McShane plays an important role as a foster--and now adoptive--parent through the Oregon Department of Human Services.

We looked at that kind of community caring, and we said this is truly an exceptional individual. We juxtaposed that wonderful record of community service alongside of his legal track record.

Judge McShane began his legal career as an attorney with the Metropolitan Public Defender's Office in Portland. We all understand the importance of public defenders. In 1997, as a result of his good work, he was appointed by the Oregon Supreme Court as a full-time pro tem judge. For the last decade he has been an adjunct professor at his alma mater, the Northwestern School of Law at Lewis and Clark College, where he teaches trial advocacy and the criminal practice seminar.

Among the many reasons I believe he is academically and professionally very qualified to be a judge is because his litigation experience includes both complex criminal and civil cases. He is the senior member of the Multnomah County Circuit Court's Death Penalty Panel and presided over more capital cases than any other sitting judge in our State. He has been a proven advocate for evidence-based sentencing, and he has a proof-based sentencing model for driving under the influence of intoxicants offenders that has now become the standard in Multnomah County.

It is for all of those reasons--especially his track record in terms of community service as well as those outstanding professional experiences starting as a public defender and teaching in the classroom--that I am very

hopeful the Senate will agree with me on a bipartisan basis that Judge McShane is qualified to serve as the U.S. district court judge for the District of Oregon.

As I indicated, Judge McShane has a heart for people, a head for the law, and a high-minded sense of justice. We have a long history in our State, as I think the President pro tempore of the Senate is aware, of some of those who have been part of our network of distinguished judges, and I have every confidence Judge McShane will join that list.

I thank Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Leahy and Ranking Member Grassley for advancing Judge McShane's confirmation through the committee. I also wish to thank Leader Reid and Minority Leader McConnell for bringing this nomination to the floor, and I look forward to the vote we will have later today.

I hope my colleagues, on a bipartisan basis, will vote to confirm Judge Michael McShane as U.S. district court judge for the District of Oregon.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on May 20, 2013, at 10 a.m., in SH-216 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to continue its executive business meeting.

Mr. President, the nomination of Dr. Ernest Moniz to head the Department of Energy is now the pending business in the Senate. I would like to discuss the nomination. I note my friend and colleague Senator Murkowski is here. Both of us will take a short amount of time to discuss Dr. Moniz's qualifications.

I urge colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the nomination of Dr. Ernest Moniz to serve as the Secretary of Energy. Dr. Moniz is smart about energy policy, he is savvy about how the Department of Energy operates, and he is solution-oriented, which is what Democrats and Republicans on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee saw when he was before our committee to consider his nomination.

I am going to talk about why I believe Dr. Moniz is well qualified to spearhead our efforts to evolve our country's energy system, to increase domestic sources, emit less carbon, and to bolster our economy. First, though, I would like to talk for a few minutes about the job Dr. Moniz will be stepping into once he is confirmed.

Right now the Energy Department is at the center of issues that are hugely consequential to our economy and the environment. They are how to manage the newly accessible reserves of natural gas, combating climate change, and making our economy more efficient. Certainly front and center is how, on a bipartisan approach, we can support the development of new energy technology. I believe our country needs that kind of energy to transition to a lower carbon economy. It is built on three pillars: strong economic growth, shrinking our carbon footprint, and spurring energy innovation.

What is unique about this moment is that now, on the issue of energy, our country is truly in a position of strength. Historically, lawmakers have avoided energy issues until there was a short-term crisis. Usually that crisis is a spike in the price of gasoline. Then, as we know, there is a big hue and cry to pass a ``comprehensive energy bill,'' and it ends up being ``comprehensive'' and still lasts a relatively short period of time, maybe a year and a half or 2 years, until there is another hue and cry to pass yet one more comprehensive bill.

Right now, the Congress and the executive branch--the Energy Department--are in a rare position, a position where we can make policy at a time when our country does not face those kinds of short-term calamities. I say that in no way minimizing the extraordinary challenge of climate change. In my view that is a potential catastrophe that needs real and immediate action, and it is something that cannot be ducked or ignored.

On energy, however, the usual calculus has been flipped on its head. New technologies have located potentially huge supplies of natural gas as well as new oil reserves. At the same time, thanks to a combination of improved efficiency, increased renewable power generation, and a rise of affordable natural gas supplies, our carbon emissions actually fell recently. A decade ago no one dreamed of either of those facts.

One of the most immediate issues that will face Dr. Moniz, if he is confirmed, is the question of how our country can maximize the benefits of unconventional shale gas. Abundant, low-cost natural gas provides our country right now with a competitive, economic advantage. The reality is all over the world others want our gas. Our competitors in Europe and Asia--where the costs are four or five times as high as our manufacturers--want what we have.

I think it is obvious that this is also a national security advantage. We will be able to rely on our own energy resources instead of sources which come from unstable parts of the world that certainly don't wish the United States well.

I was encouraged by the commitment Dr. Moniz made to me to use the best, most recent data to look at questions, such as how building natural gas export terminals is going to affect the areas adjacent to those facilities as well as the larger American economy.

From my experience of working with Dr. Moniz, I think he is more than up to the big challenges our country faces as we deal with this historic transition in our energy sector. He knows how the Department works from the inside, and he knows it because he actually has experience there.

With his background as a well-respected scientist, I am confident Dr. Moniz is going to use the best science and most current data in considering key policy issues. He has shown he will

take an independent, data-driven approach as a professor of MIT and director of that university's energy initiative. They have led numerous cutting-edge studies on a range of energy issues.

In one sense the Department of Energy ought to be called the department of innovation. One of the bright lights there is the Advanced Research Projects Agency, what is called ARPA-E, which funds research with the potential to produce major breakthroughs in energy technology. It was authorized in 2005, and it was Dr. Moniz's predecessor, Secretary Steven Chu, who oversaw the first project there and, to his credit, he was an important champion for that agency in its early days.

One of the dozens of efforts that was supported by ARPA-E, for example, is a project at the University of North Dakota which aims to reduce water usage of powerplants. According to the Department of Energy, the university is testing an air-cooled absorbent liquid that retains and releases moisture to cool powerplants that could result in efficient power production with minimal water loss.

I think it would be fair to say we could put together a pretty impressive filibuster if any one of us wanted to describe the various types of research going on or the research funded by the Department. They are leading research in a number of areas our country needs to work on if we are to achieve that objective I have staked out, and that is to secure a lower carbon economy.

As far as energy efficiency, the lowest cost way to reduce energy use and cut emissions is going to be a big part of the Department's mission in the next 4 years. Our committee is moving ahead in that area, starting with yet another bipartisan bill, the Shaheen-Portman legislation that, in my view, is the standard bearer now for energy- efficient legislation. We passed it out of the committee with broad bipartisan support, and I hope it will come to the floor of the Senate very soon.

The Department is also doing important work on carbon capture, carbon sequestration, and utilization--trapping emissions from fossil fuel operations and storing them underground to reduce the impacts to our climate. The chair of our Public Lands, Forests, and Mining Subcommittee--my friend Senator Manchin--has a great interest in this particular area, and Dr. Moniz, to his credit, has said this is an area which deserves a significant amount of attention.

DOE research has also helped show that natural gas and renewables are not mutually exclusive. This country does not have to choose between the two. In fact, natural gas plants, in my view, make great partners for intermittent renewables such as wind and solar because they can fire up and power down quickly. That is a very important part of our future energy agenda. We want to have more wind and solar. We know they are intermittent sources.

Some of the challenges, as the President of the Senate knows, are about how to find innovative approaches to storage, and looking at natural gas to help us get wind and solar into our baseload power structure. So this is an important issue.

Renewables can also benefit natural gas. The Energy Department's Pacific Northwest National Lab in Richland, WA--across the river from Oregon--is going to soon test a project to use solar energy to make natural gas plants 20 percent more efficient.

I am not going to pretend to know everything about engineering, but I think it is worth noting that the New York Times said earlier this month the idea that is being explored in Richland, WA, would use concentrated solar rays to heat natural gas and water to about 1,300 degrees Fahrenheit and break open the natural gas and water molecules. The result would create synthetic gas, which burns more efficiently than natural gas alone. This would give us more energy for every molecule of gas burned, which means lower costs and reduced greenhouse gas emissions. This is just one of many projects the Department is backing. They are not sure which are going to ultimately pan out, but the potential for breakthroughs--such as the one I have described--is exactly why it is so important for the Energy Department to have a broad research portfolio.

Our country's competitors are not sitting back waiting for our country to do all of the world's innovation. China, Germany, and others are pouring resources into R&D to try and get an advantage. The fact that we have our Energy Department on the front lines of this fight to show the world how to innovate is a huge American asset.

A significant portion of the Energy Department's budget goes into an office that is described as Environmental Management, which essentially means cleaning up America's radioactive nuclear waste. There are 17 active sites the Department is currently cleaning up, including the Hanford site in southeastern Washington. Whistleblowers and independent watchdogs, such as the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, have identified some troubling problems with how waste is stored in Hanford--including the potential for hydrogen to build up and explode in several waste tanks. They have also flagged ongoing design issues with the facility that will treat the site's nuclear waste--another matter the Department of Energy must solve.

People who live near Hanford and depend on the Columbia River received some welcome assurances from Dr. Moniz. At the hearing, Senator Murkowski and I brought some of these issues up where Dr. Moniz said the status quo with respect to the Department of Energy on Hanford is not acceptable. I look forward to working with them on that long- term solution.

Finally, I think it is fair to say Dr. Moniz--and it is appropriate to close with this--has a long track record of collaboration. That is why I mentioned early on he showed in his confirmation hearing--and he showed Democrats and Republicans alike--that he is solution-oriented and collaborative on the difficult questions which are ahead. He brings that scientific credibility, which I have outlined, with real-world policy experience that is so important to managing a major Federal agency.

There has been bipartisan support expressed from my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for Dr. Moniz in a usually gridlocked Congress. I feel as though C-SPAN ought to put out a warning to viewers not to adjust their television because this really is how the Senate ought to be working.

One of the reasons we had the bipartisan approach on energy issues I have been discussing--and it was demonstrated again this morning in the energy committee meeting--is because my friend and colleague Senator Murkowski consistently meets me at least halfway, and often more, on these big issues. I thank the Senator from Alaska for that cooperation on the Moniz nomination and many other matters. I look forward to Senator Murkowski's comments.

I see other colleagues here who may wish to speak at this time, and I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I believe we have run out of those in the Senate who wish to speak. I would just like to state again that this is a nominee who is supported by both Senator Murkowski and myself. This is a nominee who got an overwhelming bipartisan vote in the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.

As I said earlier, I think he is an individual who is smart about energy policy, he is savvy about how the Department of Energy operates and he is a solution-oriented person and Democrats and Republicans in the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee saw that in the confirmation process.

There are huge challenges ahead of him at the Department of Energy, but I think he is very qualified for this position. I would urge all Senators--Democrats and Republicans--to support the nominee.

I yield back all remaining time on both sides.

Mr. President, today I rise to reintroduce the Silviculture Regulatory Consistency Act with my colleague Senator Crapo. This legislation would end the legal uncertainty facing the timber industry by enacting legislation to preserve the Environmental Protection Agency's 37-year old policy treating forest roads as non- point sources under the Clean Water Act.

For 37 years, the EPA has maintained that forest roads are non-point sources. Furthermore, in March of this year, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling on forest roads, upholding EPA's authority to regulate forest roads as nonpoint sources under the Clean Water Act. Various studies show that if the EPA were to change their decades-long position and require Federal, State, county, tribal and private forest road owners to obtain a point source permit, the cost could reach billions of dollars and cost thousands of jobs. The Pacific Northwest needs more jobs in the woods. The way to do that is to get the timber cut up and to stop litigating questions that have already been answered.

In the 112th Congress, Senator Crapo and I introduced similar legislation on forest roads. The legislation we introduce today is different in only two respects. First, the bill includes new language to prevent forest roads from being otherwise regulated by the EPA. This language is needed because in its March 2013 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the EPA's authority to regulate forest roads as non-point sources, and therefore not require mandatory point source permits; however, it did not address the Ninth Circuit's previous ruling that forest roads are point sources. As a result, the EPA must respond to the Court's ruling that the EPA use its discretionary authority to determine whether or not to regulate forest roads as point sources. This will inevitably result in further litigation over permits for forest roads.

Second, the bill we introduce today includes the language adopted last year by the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee to clarify the list of forest activities the EPA will not regulate as point sources. The Committee favorable reported the bill with this addition.

Let me be clear. This legislation upholds an existing EPA regulation. Furthermore, this legislation does not weaken the Clean Water Act. The Clean Water Act remains in the same force as it has since it was enacted in 1972.

The introduction of this bill begins the legislative process. There will be an opportunity for hearings, testimony provided by witnesses and Federal agencies, and public dialogue on this bill. It is my hope that this legislation will provide the certainty that the timber industry needs to increase jobs in the woods, get the timber cut up, and put an end to litigating the question of whether or not EPA has the authority to regulate forest roads as non-point sources.

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

Mr. President, today I rise to reintroduce the Silviculture Regulatory Consistency Act with my colleague Senator Crapo. This legislation would end the legal uncertainty facing the timber industry by enacting legislation to preserve the Environmental Protection Agency's 37-year old policy treating forest roads as non- point sources under the Clean Water Act.

For 37 years, the EPA has maintained that forest roads are non-point sources. Furthermore, in March of this year, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling on forest roads, upholding EPA's authority to regulate forest roads as nonpoint sources under the Clean Water Act. Various studies show that if the EPA were to change their decades-long position and require Federal, State, county, tribal and private forest road owners to obtain a point source permit, the cost could reach billions of dollars and cost thousands of jobs. The Pacific Northwest needs more jobs in the woods. The way to do that is to get the timber cut up and to stop litigating questions that have already been answered.

In the 112th Congress, Senator Crapo and I introduced similar legislation on forest roads. The legislation we introduce today is different in only two respects. First, the bill includes new language to prevent forest roads from being otherwise regulated by the EPA. This language is needed because in its March 2013 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the EPA's authority to regulate forest roads as non-point sources, and therefore not require mandatory point source permits; however, it did not address the Ninth Circuit's previous ruling that forest roads are point sources. As a result, the EPA must respond to the Court's ruling that the EPA use its discretionary authority to determine whether or not to regulate forest roads as point sources. This will inevitably result in further litigation over permits for forest roads.

Second, the bill we introduce today includes the language adopted last year by the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee to clarify the list of forest activities the EPA will not regulate as point sources. The Committee favorable reported the bill with this addition.

Let me be clear. This legislation upholds an existing EPA regulation. Furthermore, this legislation does not weaken the Clean Water Act. The Clean Water Act remains in the same force as it has since it was enacted in 1972.

The introduction of this bill begins the legislative process. There will be an opportunity for hearings, testimony provided by witnesses and Federal agencies, and public dialogue on this bill. It is my hope that this legislation will provide the certainty that the timber industry needs to increase jobs in the woods, get the timber cut up, and put an end to litigating the question of whether or not EPA has the authority to regulate forest roads as non-point sources.

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

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a meeting of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources has been scheduled to discuss natural gas issues. The meeting will be held on Thursday, May 23, 2013, at 10 a.m., in room 216 of the Hart Senate Office Building.

The purpose of this meeting is to provide a forum to explore what the next applications are for natural gas and how this new demand will be met. The environmental impacts of shale gas development and best practices will be specific points of interest.

Because of the limited time available for the forum, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the record may do so by sending it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, D.C. 20510-6150, or by e-mail to lauren_goldschmidt@energy .senate.gov.

For further information, please contact Todd Wooten at (202) 224-4971 or Lauren Goldschmidt at (202) 224-5488.

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

Mr. President, I am going to take a few minutes to talk about why the events of the last 24 hours drive home how valuable it would be to have a House-Senate budget conference begin to meet and to deal with the extraordinary set of fiscal challenges our country has in front of us.

As the President of the Senate knows, a number of Senators on our side have been trying to get a budget conference with the House. It has been several months since the budget resolutions in the respective bodies, in effect, have been set in motion. I want to talk about what has happened in the last 24 hours because it again drives home how valuable it would be for the Senate and the House to move to a budget conference at this time.

Yesterday the Congressional Budget Office--of course, our official arbiter of official numbers and trends--made public a new report showing there has been a significant reduction in the budget deficit. In fact, their analysis shows there has been something like a 24- percent reduction from what was estimated a few months ago.

If we couple that new evidence from the Congressional Budget Office with the fact that consumers continue to spend--which is certainly encouraging--the housing market coming back, employers adding 165,000 jobs in April, all of this drives home that in the short term the economy is picking up and we are making real progress.

The point of a budget resolution, on the other hand, is to give us a chance to look long term and look at the next 10 years how Democrats and Republicans can come together, for example, on the long-term challenge of holding down health care costs. We have certainly seen progress in the last few months on that.

There is a debate about why health costs have been moderating of late. I happen to think it is because providers and others are beginning to see what is ahead, but we can have that debate. Certainly there is a lot more to do in terms of holding down health care costs for the long term, and that is what I wish to see the Senate and House go to in terms of the budget resolution.

For example--and I think I have talked about this with the President of the Senate before--chronic care is where most of the Medicare money goes. Chronic care is for people with challenges with heart disease, stroke, and diabetes. We have some ideas we believe could be bipartisan, and would be exactly the kind of thing the House and Senate should take up in a conference on the budget, which we have been seeking for some time.

I only come to the floor today by way of trying to lay out why the events of the last few days dramatize how useful it would be for the Senate and the House to start thinking about what the country cares about, which is our long-term trends.

In fact, this morning I was struck by the fact that some economic theorists

say the Congress has, over the last few months, had it backwards. We have been consumed with everything short term when, in fact, we ought to say: Look at some of those positive developments I just cited-- including the Congressional Budget Office numbers here recently--that would indicate maybe a little bit less of the back and forth. That is certainly what voters see as unduly partisan. We need to give way to some thoughtful, long-term efforts in perhaps a 10-year window, which is what is reflected on the budget side.

Some of the leading Republicans and some of the archconservatives with respect to economic analysis are all saying the same thing: We ought to be talking about long-term trends. I, as well as my fellow Democratic colleagues, have said that is one of the reasons for a budget conference. Glenn Hubbard, for example, one of the most respected of the conservatives, talks continually about the long-term challenge and the dangers of waiting.

Well, on this side of the aisle, we are saying we don't want to wait anymore in terms of getting to a budget conference. We want to be in a position to tackle some of these major kinds of questions: pro-growth tax reform--tax reform that can, again, generate revenue, and we have some ideas we would like to raise in a budget conference that we think would be attractive to the other side.

So I hope colleagues who have had questions about whether there ought to be a budget conference now--an actual budget conference between the Senate and the House--will look at these matters anew, given these kinds of trends. I would point out, to tell my colleagues the truth, I am encouraged on this point. We have heard colleagues over the last few days on the other side of the aisle say they too think this is the time for an actual budget conference between the House and the Senate. They have called for it for a long time. We now have a chance to not just call for it but actually do it. If anything, the economic news I have cited suggests some of the focus on these short-term trends ought to give way to more emphasis on bipartisan concern for the long-term trends, which are, in particular, going to revolve around health care, especially Medicare, and taxes where we have an opportunity to look at bipartisan approaches for tax reform.

I commend particularly Senator Baucus and Senator Hatch, our leadership on the Finance Committee on which I serve, who have been talking with Senators in weekly sessions they have pulled together on particularly the tax reform issue.

So we couple the opportunity for the long term, looking at things such as chronic health care which is where most of the Medicare dollars go. I think there are some good opportunities for protecting the rights of seniors while having quality care, holding costs down--those are the things we can look at in the longer term, which is what a budget resolution is all about.

So it has been 2 months since the House and Senate adopted their respective budget resolutions. I think, if anything, what we have learned in the last few days is yet more evidence of why Senators and House Members of good will who want to tackle the long-term economic challenge--which, if anything, becomes increasingly important day by day--ought to go to a budget conference and go forthwith to that effort in a bipartisan way.

Later on today I intend to propound a unanimous consent request to in fact go to that conference with the House on the budget, and I urge colleagues to join me--I know Senator Coburn is here, and I commend him because he has been one who has been interested in tackling long-term fiscal challenges. Long-term fiscal challenges, in a debate between the House and the Senate over the next 10 years and the future trends we are looking at, are going to be front and center. We can tackle those questions, particularly on health care and taxes, by going to a conference, as well as looking at the long term overall. We would also be, in my view, picking up on what economists and leaders in the private sector of both political parties are saying now, which is there should be a little bit less of a focus on short-term sparring about our economy and more of a focus on the long-term economic challenges, which is what a House-Senate budget conference, looking at 10 years ahead, could be all about.

With that, I yield the floor and I note the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I appreciate Senator Reid yielding me this time and Senator McConnell being on the floor for this, and I will be brief.

As I discussed earlier this morning, yesterday's new report from the Congressional Budget Office highlights why it would be so important to have a conference committee between the House and the Senate go to work on the budget. What the Congressional Budget Office reported yesterday was a 24-percent reduction in the budget deficit--quite a remarkable projection. That, coupled with the improving jobs and housing numbers, we now have economic experts across the political spectrum--for example, people such as Glenn Hubbard, a leading Republican economist-- saying it is important for the Congress to look at these long-term economic challenges. In fact, we have economic experts of both political parties saying Washington ought to be doing more about the long-term economic challenges and not just have the day-to-day battling.

Going to a budget conference will give us that opportunity. It will give us the opportunity to look at the 10-year budget window and particularly issues such as health care and taxes.

So in the name of dealing with the long-term economic challenges highlighted by yesterday's projections, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 33, H. Con. Res. 25; that the amendment which is at the desk, the text of S. Con. Res. 8, the budget resolution passed by the Senate, be inserted in lieu thereof; that H. Con. Res. 25, as amended, be agreed to; the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table; that the Senate insist on its amendment, request a conference with the House on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses; and the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the Senate; all with no intervening action or debate.

I do not. The point I have tried to make is the Congressional Budget Office didn't talk about the Senate relitigating past discussions.

I do.

If I could be recognized for another brief moment this highlights how unfortunate it is that we don't look to the future as the Congressional Budget Office projections laid out for us yesterday. The Congressional Budget Office didn't talk about relitigating past votes here in the Senate. They said specifically the deficit was significantly lower than earlier projected, and, on the basis of what I have cited, economic experts of both political parties are saying it is time to look to the long-term challenges, particularly Medicare and taxes. I came today to say that a budget conference would provide that kind of window: the opportunity to look particularly at long-term health care challenges such as chronic care and Medicare.

I see my colleague from the Senate Finance Committee, who knows we have been talking about tax reform, Democrats and Republicans; again, a bipartisan opportunity we could achieve through a conference. I proposed that today, based on the new evidence from yesterday. Regrettably, we can't go to conference because it seems the leader on the other side will only go to conference if we can relitigate the stuff that happened in the Senate which he lost.

I hope colleagues will look at that new Congressional Budget Office report. I hope they will look at the jobs picture, the housing starts, all of which seem to be improving in the short term. I hope they will pay more attention to what economic experts of both political parties are saying, which is we ought to be looking to our long-term challenges--particularly in health care and taxes--with the budget conference between the House and the Senate providing an opportunity to look at that 10-year window. We could do exactly what economic experts of both political parties are talking about. I think it is unfortunate we have not been given that opportunity today and I hope we will be given it in the days ahead.

With that, I yield the floor.

Madam President, it has been 5 years since the Iranian regime arrested and imprisoned seven members of the Baha'i community's ad hoc leadership group. Today I rise to mark this sad anniversary and to remind folks of the persecution that religious minorities continue to face in Iran.

The Baha'i faith was founded in Iran during the 19th century. It is an independent religion not a sect of Islam

and it rejects violence. The Baha'i faith is practiced today by more than 5 million people around the world, roughly 300,000 of whom still live in Iran.

But rather than celebrate its own religious history, the Iranian regime considers the Baha'i faith to be a heresy and brutally represses its practitioners. The regime routinely seizes personal property from members of the Baha'i community, denies them access to education and employment opportunities, and detains them based solely on their religious beliefs. According to some reports, more than 600 Baha'is have been arrested since 2004. The American Baha'i community counts 115 Baha'is currently in Iranian prisons and another 437 awaiting trial, appeal, sentencing, or for their sentence to begin.

Five years ago, the Iranian regime arrested seven leaders of the Baha'i community--Fariba Kamalabadi, Jamaloddin Khanjani, Afif Naeimi, Saeid Rezaie, Mahvash Sabet, Behrouz Tavakkoli, and Vahid Tizfahm--and detained them in Iran's notorious Evin prison. Iranian leaders accused the seven of espionage for Israel, insulting religious sanctities, and propaganda against the Islamic Republic.

These seven have since faced sham trials in kangaroo courts. One of their lawyers, Nobel Peace Prize laureate Shirin Ebadi, reported difficultly establishing basic, meaningful access to counsel. She also stated that the regime had no evidence against the accused and that their trial was riddled with irregularities. Despite these concerns the regime sentenced all seven to 20 years in prison in 2010.

I and many others found these sentences unconscionable and said so at the time. Imagine being sentenced to prison because your faith recognized the divine origin of the world's great religions, the oneness of the human race, and the equality of men and women. Imagine losing 20 years of your life because somebody objected to your personal beliefs.

For the Iranian regime, I am sorry to say, this is more business as usual. This religious persecution is hardly limited to the Baha'is either. In fact, since 1999 the State Department has designated Iran as a ``country of particular concern'' for its human rights record. The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom's 2012 annual report cited the regime for engaging in ``systematic, ongoing, and egregious violations of religious freedom, including prolonged detention, torture, and executions based primarily or entirely upon the religion of the accused.'' The report goes on to state that ``even the recognized non-Muslim religious minorities protected under Iran's constitution--Jews, Armenian and Assyrian Christians, and Zoroastrians--faced increasing discrimination, arrests, and imprisonment.''

The Iranian regime must stop its assault on religious expression and freedom of conscience, and there is no better day to do so than this sad and dubious anniversary. I call upon Iran's rulers to immediately release the seven Baha'i leaders and all other prisoners held on account of their beliefs. I also want to urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring S. Res. 75, introduced by Senators Kirk and Durbin. This resolution condemns the Iranian regime for its state-sponsored persecution of its Baha'i minority and for its continued violation of the International Covenants on Human Rights, to which Iran is a party.

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a meeting of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources has been scheduled to discuss natural gas issues. The meeting will be held on Tuesday, May 21, 2013, at 10:00 a.m., in room 216 of the Hart Senate Office Building.

The purpose of this meeting is to provide a forum to explore what the next applications are for natural gas and how this new demand will be met. Domestic supply and the potential benefits or unintended consequences caused by expansion of natural gas exports will be specific points of interest.

Because of the limited time available for the forum, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the record may do so by sending it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, D.C. 20510-6150, or by e-mail to lauren_goldschmidt@energy .senate.gov.

For further information, please contact Todd Wooten at (202) 224-4971 or Lauren Goldschmidt at (202) 224-5488.

Mr. President, when my colleagues and I went to college, things were a lot different. We took out loans, but those loans were manageable, and there were jobs waiting after graduation. Today, too often, that's simply not the case. In fact, the majority of students today will leave school weighed down with more than $26,000 in debt and will attempt to enter a labor market in an environment where there are more unemployed Americans than there are jobs available.

For the first time in our Nation's history, student loan debt exceeds credit card debt and now totals over $1 trillion.

James Garfield once said, ``Next in importance to freedom and justice is popular education, without which neither freedom nor justice can be permanently maintained.'' He was right. Investment in higher education is an economic imperative. Education is the great equalizer. It enables upward economic mobility and breaks down class structures. A highly skilled and educated workforce is the basis for any healthy economy. It is the foundation of our country's future.

In nearly every financial decision Americans make, individuals and families try to evaluate the economic value of that decision. Like prospective homebuyers who inspect and assess the potential value of their future home, students should be able to compare colleges and programs based on what the likely return on their investment will be.

Our capital markets work best when there is transparency so we can accurately measure the value of what we choose to invest in. We saw what happens when this is not the case with the burst of the housing bubble. Our economy is still struggling to recover from the mortgage crisis. Misinformed consumers bought a product based on misleading information and, often times, fell victim to bad loans offered by predatory lenders.

Consumers must know what they can expect from their investments. Similarly, students are entitled to know the value of their education before they borrow tens of thousands of dollars from banks and the government to finance their future.

Right now, consumers don't have this information. It is unavailable to students and families who are making critical decisions that will impact not only their future, both their financial future and career path, but also the collective future of our country. That is why today, Senator Rubio, Senator Warner and I are introducing an updated version of the Student Right to Know Before You Go Act which will help inform consumers and prevent market failures.

This proposal would ensure future students and their families can make well-informed decisions by creating a market in which specific schools and specific programs can be evaluated based on the average annual earnings and employment outcomes of graduates; rates of remedial enrollment and success of students that participate in remedial education; the percent of students that receive Federal, State, and institutional grant aid or loans; the average amount of total Federal loan debt of students upon graduation; the average amount of total Federal loan debt for students that do not complete a program; transfer success rates; and rates at which students continue on to higher levels of education.

The Department of Education has created a College Scorecard which is a step in the right direction. The Scorecard, however, does not fully capture any of the metrics outlined above and includes no information to prospective students to evaluate the economic returns of their program of study. The Wyden-Rubio-Warner bill generates this critical information.

Markets fail when there is too little information and until now, it has been impossible to ``Collect this data in a cost-effective way while ensuring student privacy.

This proposal makes it possible to secure a return on investment for students, parents, policy makers, and taxpayers while creating a workforce that meets the demands of today's businesses and ensures that American workers can successfully compete in the global economy.