Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the HELP Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 437, and the bill be referred to the Committee on Banking.

Mr. President, as in executive session, I ask unanimous consent that the Injunction of Secrecy be removed from the following treaties transmitted to the Senate on April 22, 2013, by the President of the United States:

Convention on the Conservation and Management of High Seas Fishery Resources in the South Pacific Ocean, Treaty Document No. 113-1; Convention on the Conservation and Management of High Seas Fisheries Resources in the North Pacific Ocean, Treaty Document No. 113-2; and amendment to the Convention of Future Multilateral Cooperation in the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries, Treaty Document No. 113-3.

I further ask that the treaties be considered as having been read the first time, they be referred with the accompanying papers to the Committee on Foreign Relations and ordered to be printed, and that the President's messages be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10 a.m. on Tuesday, April 23, 2013; that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; that following any leader remarks, the Senate be in a period of morning business for 1 hour, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each, with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with the majority controlling the first half and the Republicans controlling the final half; further, that following morning business, the Senate resume consideration of the motion to proceed to Calendar No. 41, S. 743, the Marketplace Fairness Act postcloture; finally, that the Senate recess from 12:30 p.m. until 2:15 p.m. to allow for the weekly caucus meetings.

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent the Senate stand adjourned under the previous order.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, as I understand it, Leader Reid moved to proceed to the Marketplace Fairness Act a bit ago. I have deep reservations about this legislation, so I am not able to support the motion to proceed. The leader has filed cloture on his motion, and I just want it understood at this point that if cloture is invoked, I will not be able to support a reduction in the amount of time available for Members to debate this.

The Presiding Officer and I have talked about this a number of times, but just for purposes of this discussion, I think it is extremely important that the Senate and the country think through the implications of what this bill is all about.

What this bill is all about is that the advocates essentially want to take a function that is now vested in government--State tax collection--and, in effect, outsource that function of government to small businesses, particularly these small online retailers.

This has been a big source of employment, good wages, innovative approaches, new apps. It has been a big boost for our country. I think it is important for the Senate to think through what this means and try to see if we can come up with something that is sensible.

For example, the proponents of the legislation are going to argue with considerable passion that this is not going to be a hard task for these small businesses on which they have imposed this new assignment-- as they call it, outsourcing the function of State tax collection, which is done by government, to these small businesses.

The proponents say it is not going to be hard for small businesses to handle this. They are going to say there is a lot of new technology available--computer software and the like--and that the Marketplace Fairness Act will not be difficult to administer as a result of these new technologies.

Having been involved in this debate now for years and years--having been the original author of what is a different subject but has some of the same connections, the Internet tax fairness legislation--I have heard the proponents of this legislation say, year after year after year, this is not going to be a hard assignment, the process of these small businesses collecting these taxes, that new technologies are available, and that the law ought to be passed because it can be done.

But year after year we have seen that the idea that this is so simple and it can be done is not borne out. If it were so simple, it would have been done already. The reason this bill comes to the floor of the Senate is because it is, in fact, not so simple. It is not going to be a piece of cake for these small businesses.

There are more than 5,000 taxing jurisdictions in our country. Some of them give very different treatment for products and services that are almost identical. So this is a big lift to say we are going to have software and computers and technology and it is just going to be a piece of cake for these small businesses to be able to handle this.

I think that is part of what needs to be discussed in a debate on the floor of the Senate because, fundamentally, the idea of taking a function of government--tax collection--and handing it over to small businesses--and small businesses being a big part of our country's economic engine--is something I think ought to give every Senator pause.

In addition to that, I want us to think through the aspects of this that relate to America's ability to compete in tough global markets.

I know when we talked about this in a brief way during the Senate budget debate, several Senators said that, oh, back in the days when we were just debating the Internet, they could see the need for some of these policies in the digital age, but now the Internet is all grown up. We do not need any of these kinds of approaches such as technological neutrality and nondiscrimination with respect to taxes and regulation.

My response to this is, yes, it is a different day. There is no question about it. I chair the Senate Finance Subcommittee on International Trade. As part of my obligations there to look at trade and competitiveness, I have come to the conclusion that the Internet is the shipping lane of the 21st century.

I think about what the Finance Committee looked like 30, 40 years ago--people moving goods physically from North Dakota, Oregon, and the like. It is very different today. With a lot of economic activity, in a sense, being conducted online on the Internet, to a great extent it is now the shipping lane.

This bill, I want the Senate to know and the country to know, will be a big leg up for foreign retailers and foreign businesses. The reason I say that is the Marketplace Fairness Act, in effect, tries to take local law and apply it to the global economy. It is unprecedented.

What it will mean--if passed in its present form--is that if you are on the northern border--say you are in North Dakota or Washington State or other places that are on the northern border--if you are an online retailer, you are going to say to yourself: Why in the world would you want to stay on the U.S. side of the border and try to comply with the rules of thousands of taxing jurisdictions when you can move, in effect, half an hour away outside the borders of the United States and not be subjected to this?

So maybe the sponsors of the bill want to rename their bill--now called the Marketplace Fairness Act--the shop Canada and the shop Mexico bill because that is truly what it would mean.

I have heard some in favor of the bill say that is not the case, that there are long-arm statutes and the like. Good luck with that. Good luck with the idea we have not been able to figure out a way to do this in the United States, now we are going to write a bill that says it does not apply to the foreign retailer or the foreign business, and we are going to say we are going to be able to hook those people somehow with a long-arm statute. I do not see it.

That is what the point of this debate is all about. So we had the discussion in the context of the budget. I think then it was sort of seen as kind of a general proposition. But now we are getting ready to write a real law. My own preference would be to have this go back to the Senate Finance Committee chaired by Chairman Baucus--we work very closely in a bipartisan way, Chairman Baucus and Senator Hatch--and that we have a chance to think through the implications here.

I can think of some commonsense ideas where the Presiding Officer and I would agree on some kind of uniformity. I mean, if we were talking about uniformity rather than 5,000-plus taxing jurisdictions, that would be one thing. We saw the jobs numbers last month. They were not where they ought to be. The idea that now we are going to take steps here in the Senate which would hinder the growth of the innovative engine of the American economy strikes me as something we should not be doing.

Personally I would very much like to be part of an effort to work this out. I have always said the American economy is now about bricks and clicks. We now have most of our businesses looking to try to have storefronts and online operations. I want both of them to prosper. Some of Oregon's most illustrious companies look at just that principle, bricks and clicks.

But let's not hammer the innovation sector, that online aspect of the American economy, especially given what we have seen of late. I mean, think about the Friday after Thanksgiving. Were the malls and the stores empty the Friday after Thanksgiving? They certainly were not. The traditional part of the American economy, stores and malls--people could not find a parking place. Those stores were offering hours earlier and earlier in order to meet consumer demand.

So, yes, let's promote bricks and clicks, but let's not precipitously take steps that will harm so much of the American economy. When I got involved in these issues years ago--I think I told the Presiding Officer about this. When I came to the Senate, I had just become Oregon's first new Senator in 30 years. I made it clear I was going to spend a lot of time on timber and natural resources issues. I chair the Energy Committee. I am going to continue to do that, because that is a bedrock part of the American economy and a bedrock part of Oregon's future and small communities and what our State is all about.

I said in addition to that focus on timber and natural resources, when I came to the Senate, I am going to spend a lot of time looking at technology and innovation and new areas for our State to get into. That led me into some of those initial kinds of efforts, passage of the section of the Communications Decency Act which encouraged investment in social media, Facebook and Twitter and social media, because had we not gotten that passed, we were told a lot of people who might think about investing in the social media would see that someone who ran a Website would get held liable for someone who posted on that site and the owner of the site would not know anything about it and could not figure out how to get rid of that. So with that, and with the Internet tax freedom bill and others, we said with respect to technology and innovation, let's do two things: First, let's do no harm. Let's not take steps actively where we damage our economy and our future. Second, let's not discriminate. Let's not single out this sector which has shown so much promise.

At a minimum, the marketplace fairness legislation, as written today, will violate that first principle. It will do harm. It will force those small online retailers to, in effect, take on a government function, tax collection. I do not know of any civics book that talks about outsourcing a function of government--tax collection--to small businesses. That is what the marketplace fairness legislation does.

Second, in a tough global economy--I know the Presiding Officer cares a great deal about global commerce and global trade coming from her State--this bill will favor foreign businesses that will not be subjected to it. That is something that cannot be corrected in this bill in its present form. There may be other ways to correct it; there may be other ways to correct a number of aspects of the bill. That cannot. It will favor foreign retailers.

As I chair the Finance Subcommittee on Global Commerce and Global Trade, I do not see how that makes sense. That is why I have made it clear today that given the state of where the Senate discussion is now with the leader having filed cloture on his motion--I want to make it clear that if cloture is invoked, I will not support a reduction in time for this discussion.

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

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public of an addition to a previously announced hearing before Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests, and Mining of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

The hearing will be held on Thursday, April 25, 2013, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

In addition to the other measures previously announced, the Committee will also consider:

S. 736, to establish a maximum amount for special use permit fees applicable to certain cabins on National Forest System land in the State of Alaska; and,

S. 757, to provide for the implementation of the multispecies habitat conservation plan for the Virgin River, Nevada, and Lincoln County, Nevada, to extend the authority to purchase certain parcels of public land, and for other purposes.

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 john_assini@energy .senate.gov.

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

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public of additions to a previously announced hearing before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

The hearing will be held on Tuesday, April 23, 2013, at 10:00 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

In addition to the other measures previously announced, the Committee will also consider H.R. 678, Bureau of Reclamation Small Conduit Hydropower Development and Rural Jobs Act; and S. 761, Energy Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act of 2013.

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 lauren_goldschmidt @energy.senate.gov.

For further information, please contact Sara Tucker at (202) 224- 6224, Dan Adamson at (202) 224-2871, or Lauren Goldschmidt at (202) 224-5488.

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a business meeting has been scheduled before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The business meeting will be held on Thursday, April 18, 2013, at 9:45 a.m., in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of the business meeting is to consider the nomination of Dr. Ernest Moniz to be the Secretary of Energy.

For further information, please contact Sam Fowler at (202) 224-7571 or Abigail Campbell at (202) 224-4905.

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 Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Thursday, April 18, 2013, at 10 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on the U.S. Department of Energy's budget for fiscal year 2014.

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 lauren_goldschmidt @energy.senate.gov.

For further information, please contact Abigail Campbell at (202) 224-4905 or Lauren Goldschmidt at (202) 224-5488.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 20 minutes.

Mr. President, in Shakespeare's ``Julius Caesar,'' a soothsayer warned Caesar to ``beware the Ides of March.'' For most Americans, however, the Ides of March passes without incident. It is the Ides of April--April 15, tax day--that so many Americans dread. The last few days must have been a big bonanza for the headache medicine industry. Taxes are due tonight at midnight.

Millions of Americans spent their weekend struggling to use tax software that crashed, flailing about to locate receipts, and wading through hundreds of pages of tax instructions. Instead of enjoying the outdoors or spending time with family and friends, too many Americans spent this past weekend hunched over their kitchen tables or in front of their computers surrounded by a maze of receipts, canceled checks, forms, and other paperwork as they undertook the annual water torture ritual of preparing tax returns.

This is the tax instruction booklet for our personal taxes, our 1040 form. It goes on and on, well over 200 pages. The first 104 pages of instructions are the basic form 1040. The further 110 pages of instructions are for the most common schedules to the 1040. There has got to be a better way.

Some day I hope Democrats and Republicans can come to the floor of this body, ask unanimous consent that this goes into the trash, and instead we substitute a much simpler way for our people to do their taxes. The reality is the Tax Code is too complex, too costly, and simply takes too much time to comply with. It is a code that is hopelessly out of date, mind-numbingly complex, increasingly unfair, and extraordinarily inefficient.

As a result, one of our most consequential economic policies, our tax law, does far more to stifle economic growth than to encourage it. Our country needs a comprehensive overhaul of our system of raising revenue and a modern Tax Code that is simpler, fairer, and simply more efficient. In sum, what is needed is a progrowth economic tax policy. If history is any guide, particularly when former President Reagan and a big group of Democrats got together, it can bolster American families and increase revenue without raising rates.

I have been something of a broken record on this issue for some time. But on a day such as this, particularly given what our people went through over the past weekend, I think it is time we spend a few minutes to talk

about how important it is to bring some common sense to American tax law. What is particularly striking is that I think the Congress understands what needs to be done. This is a question of political will now. There have been all kinds of blue-ribbon reports from the Bush administration, the Obama administration. I think what needs to be done is widely understood.

The pipes in the Tax Code are clogged with provisions that encourage rent-seeking behavior, lead to the misallocation of capital, and warp the American economy. What needs to be done is go in there and drain the swamp and clean out the Tax Code. It contains almost 4 million words. In the last decade alone, more than 130 laws have been enacted that yielded almost 4,500 changes to the Tax Code. That amounts to more than one change to the Tax Code each and every day, year in and year out.

It has become so complicated that almost 90 percent of taxpayers either hire a tax preparer or use tax preparation software to complete returns. The IRS reports that the average estimated time burden for all taxpayers filing a Form 1040, a 1040A, a 1040EZ, is 13 hours, with an average cost of $210. With respect to these forms, nonbusiness taxpayers face an average burden of about 8 hours, a full day's work, while business taxpayers face an average burden of about 23 hours, nearly 3 days of work.

In 2011, the Small Business Administration found that among businesses with 20 or fewer employees, tax compliance cost $1,584 per employee. In addition to the escalating cost of compliance with this code, cost, both time and money, the complexity of the code, in my view, has obscured the typical person's ability to understand it and has undercut voluntary compliance, which is, of course, the bedrock principle of our tax law.

With the ongoing debate about how to reduce the budget deficit, the Tax Code's complexity serves also to perpetuate what is known as the tax gap; that is, the difference between what taxpayers pay and what is owed under the law. The most recent Internal Revenue Service estimate for the tax gap is $385 billion. Based on statistical trends, the likely gap for this year is going to exceed $420 billion. This is an underpayment of approximately 14 percent.

My gut tells me--I serve on both the Finance Committee and the Joint Committee on Taxation--that some of this gap certainly is due to conscious tax evasion, but I also believe a significant portion of it is attributable to inadvertent mistakes in filing, many of which stem from the complexity of the code. Well-coordinated, thoughtful, comprehensive reform is going to reduce the need for many complex provisions that limit the ability of taxpayers to benefit from certain deductions, credits, exemptions, and exclusions. Comprehensive tax reform must eliminate the multiple provisions that require taxpayers to calculate their liability multiple times, such as the alternative minimum tax. Talk about bureaucratic water torture. All this weekend across the country we had middle-class folks essentially doing their taxes twice as a result of the minimum tax. The personal exemption phaseout, PEP, and the phaseout of itemized deductions, Pease, isn't much easier.

I would show this poster which demonstrates 11 tax forms. These are forms, colleagues, the typical filer must fill out every year or, if they can afford it, pay someone to fill them out. Is it really necessary to run this full-time, hand-cramping program for our citizens to have to wade through all of this?

We also have another alternative, a one-page 1040 form which I have worked on with colleagues for years. It is only about 29 lines long. Some industrious reporters took this particular tax form and found a typical citizen--this was worked on by Democrats and Republicans--may fill out their taxes with this form in under an hour.

To illustrate how complicated the code has become, let me refer briefly to capital gains. The income tax currently imposes at least nine different effective tax rates on capital gains, depending on the taxpayer's regular rate, how long an asset was owned, the type of asset, and whether the taxpayer owes the alternative minimum tax. For this the IRS provides three different worksheets, one with 37 lines, to help taxpayers calculate their tax on capital gains.

Comprehensive reform should make things easier for taxpayers by allowing a percentage exclusion for long-term gains and reapplying regular tax rates to the rest. This simple change, to have an exclusion for a measure of capital gains which have been earned and then a progressive rate structure from this point on, would sharply reduce the complexity of returns while maintaining fairness and opportunities for all our people to invest.

Further complicating matters, a number of commonly used terms in the Tax Code: qualifying child, modified adjusted gross income, and more, have multiple definitions depending on the provision. Certainly, Democrats and Republicans should agree uniform definitions for the most commonly used terms are something which shouldn't be a bipartisan issue. More than 40 definitions of small business exist in the Tax Code alone.

There are certainly policy reasons to provide tax benefits to families with children. The definition of a child differs widely across the Tax Code.

Children under 19 count in defining the earned-income tax credit benefits. Those under 17 qualify for the child credit, and only those under 13 are eligible for the child and dependent care credit. Maybe these differences result from deliberate congressional actions about who ought to receive tax benefits, but I think they needlessly complicate tax filing and certainly lead to inadvertent errors which the Internal Revenue Service then attempts to figure out how to correct.

Other factors used to define qualifying children further complicate the situation, including the child's physical residence, custody arrangements, and who pays the child's living expenses. Establishing a single definition to determine whether taxpayers may claim tax benefits for children would simplify both tax filing and IRS processing of returns.

The list only goes on and on, such as the earned-income tax credit, something vital to low-income families, and a whole host of different workshops. The educational credits are, again, another example where families with students in college qualifying for multiple tax benefits to defray educational expenses often may claim only one of them. For example, a family may be able to claim either the Hope credit or the Lifetime Learning Credit, but not both for the same student.

If the family has more than one student it may claim one credit for one student and the other for a second student. Determining which alternative is best requires multiple calculations and may conflict with the use of other tax benefits for education such as Coverdale savings accounts and 529 savings plans. Comprehensive tax reform would, at the very minimum, coordinate these educational benefits to make it easier for families to determine eligibility.

How complicated have things become? A few years ago Treasury's Inspector General for Tax Administration sent staff to pose as taxpayers at 12 commercial preparer chains and 16 small independent preparers. Of the 28 tax returns the professionals prepared, 17 had mistakes. All of the business returns were wrong. Let me repeat that. All of the business returns were wrong when professionals had prepared them.

In 2006 the same sort of drill was undertaken. Again, the Government Accountability Office found professional preparers made mistakes. They mishandled those bread-and-butter kinds of issues, such as the earned- income tax credit and the childcare credit. They even got it wrong whether the taxpayer should even itemize his or her deductions.

The question is, If the pros can't figure out how to file taxes, isn't it clear, isn't it obvious to all of us the Tax Code needs to be purged and the special interest breaks cleaned out so rates can be held down for all? And we can agree on a simple tax philosophy. I can sum up mine in a sentence.

I believe we need a tax system which gives everybody in America the opportunity to get ahead. If you are successful, we want you to be successful. You will pay your fair share, but nothing in the Tax Code will make it impossible for you to be successful in the days

ahead. If you don't have much, we will have a Tax Code which is simple and understandable. When you work hard and play by the rules, you will have an opportunity to get ahead as well.

Comprehensive tax reform will make it easier to file. It is going to lay out an opportunity for the Senate Democrats, Republicans, and Independents to come together.

I close simply by saying once again, we saw in the past few days how broken and dysfunctional our tax system in America has become. Can you imagine what people thought when their software was crashing in the last couple of days? They are trying to find their receipts, flailing through filing cabinets trying to find those documents which attest to their taxable events for the past year. They can't know with certainty, based upon some of those analyses by the Government Accountability Office, whether they have done it right or even professionals have done it correctly.

Until this Senate comes together on a bipartisan basis to work for a simpler, more coherent tax system--one which promotes growth and eases the burden on American families and American businesses--there will be no relief from the Ides of April. This, in my view, is a tragedy worthy of Shakespeare.

I yield the floor.

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, April 16, 2013, at 10 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of this hearing is to consider the President's Proposed Budget for Fiscal Year 2014 for the Forest Service.

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.

Mr. President, I would like to advise you 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 Tuesday, April 16, 2013, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC.

The purpose of this hearing will be to hear testimony on the following measures:

S. 211, the Provo River Project Transfer Act;

S. 284, the Fort Sumner Project Title Conveyance Act;

S. 510, the Scofield Land Transfer Act;

S. 659, to reauthorize the Reclamation States Emergency

Drought Relief Act of 1991;

S. 684, to amend the Mni Wiconi Project Act of 1988 to

facilitate completion of the Mni Wiconi Rural Water Supply

System, and for other purposes;

S. 693, to amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater

Study and Facilities Act to authorize the Secretary of the

Interior to participate in the City of Hermiston, Oregon,

water recycling and reuse project, and for other purposes.

S.J. Res. 12, A joint resolution to consent to certain

amendments enacted by the legislature of the State of Hawaii

to the Hawaiian Homes Commission, Act, 1920; and

H.R. 316 and S. Amdt. 579, the Collinsville Renewable

Energy Promotion Act.

For further information, please contact Sara Tucker at (202) 224-6224 or John Assini at (202) 224-9313.

Mr. President, I would like to advise you of an addition to a previously announced hearing before Subcommittee on Water and Power of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

The hearing will be held on Tuesday, April 16, 2013, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

In addition to the other measures previously announced, the Committee will also consider:

S. 684, to amend the Mni Wiconi Project Act of 1988 to

facilitate completion of the Mni Wiconi Rural Water Supply

System, and for other purposes;

S. 693, to amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater

Study and Facilities Act to authorize the Secretary of the

Interior to participate in the City of Hermiston, Oregon,

water recycling and reuse project, and for other purposes;

and

S. 715, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to use

designated funding to pay for construction of authorized

rural water projects, and for other purposes.

For further information, please contact Sara Tucker at (202) 224- 6224, or John Assini at (202) 224-9313.

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public of an addition to a previously announced hearing before Subcommittee on Water and Power of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

The hearing will be held on Tuesday, April 16, 2013, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

In addition to the other measures previously announced, the Committee will also consider:

S. 684, to amend the Mni Wiconi Project Act of 1988 to facilitate completion of the Mni Wiconi Rural Water Supply System, and for other purposes;

S. 693, to amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to participate in the City of Hermiston, Oregon, water recycling and reuse project, and for other purposes;

and,

S. 715, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to use designated funding to pay for construction of authorized rural water projects, and for other purposes.

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, DC 20510-6150, or by e-mail to john_assini@energy .senate.gov.

For further information, please contact Sara Tucker at (202) 224- 6224, or John Assini at (202) 224-9313.

Mr. President, this afternoon we will take up in the Senate the confirmation of Sally Jewell to head the Department of the Interior. The Department is one of America's biggest landowners and is the second largest source of revenue for the Treasury after the Internal Revenue Service. The Department of Interior has the unique mission of protecting America's treasures while pursuing balanced approaches to promote sustainable economic development.

The Department administers the Outer Continental Shelf Program, which is vital to the gulf coast, and Oregon's forest lands in southwestern Oregon where we are pushing hard to increase forest health because we know forest health equals a healthy economy.

The Department has significant trust responsibilities for Native Americans, and it manages water reclamation projects throughout the West. Public lands, which are administered by the Department, are a lifeline for our ranchers, and they are especially important given the recent droughts our country has experienced.

In addition to these traditional responsibilities, increasingly the Department of the Interior is responsible for providing recreational opportunities for millions of our citizens. Today millions of Americans use these lands to hunt, camp, fish, hike, and boat. Let's make no mistake about it. Outdoor recreation is now a major economic engine for our country, generating more than $645 billion of revenue each year.

This is why I am especially enthused today to be able to strongly recommend Sally Jewell to head the Department of the Interior. She has exceptional qualifications. Somehow she has managed to pack into just one lifetime two or three lifetimes of experiences. She has been a petroleum engineer, corporate CEO, a banker, and a citizen volunteer. Her qualifications clearly made an impression on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, which I chair. Last month our members voted 19 to 3 to approve her nomination, and I believe she got that resounding vote because she is the right person to oversee the multitude of programs at the Department of the Interior, several of which I have just mentioned. She certainly made clear in her confirmation hearing that she understands there is an enormous responsibility to balance the dual roles of conserving and developing resources.

I think we all understand that jobs in our country come from the private sector, and if through this Department we can come up with innovative, fresh policies to set the climate for job growth while we protect our treasures, that is clearly going to be good for the United States of America.

Let's look at a few of the areas where she is going to be involved. Natural gas is just one. This resource has been a huge, positive development for our country. We have it, the world wants it, our prices are lower, and we are seeing a significant interest among American manufacturers in bringing jobs back home. I know this has been of great interest to the Presiding Officer today. A lot of these manufacturers are saying they want to come back from overseas because America has a price advantage in terms of clean natural gas.

There are significant environmental questions associated with natural gas. We have already talked about them in our committee. We are going to have to deal with fracking issues and methane emissions and underground aquifers. Based on some of the discussions we have had--and we had a very good dialog between Frances Beinecke of the Natural Resources Defense Council and Senator Hoeven from North Dakota where they have a significant interest in natural gas--I believe that under Sally Jewell, when it comes to our public lands, we are going to be able to strike the kind of responsible balance that will make sense for the Senate in a bipartisan way.

I see my friend and colleague Senator Murkowski is here. She has more than met me halfway as we have tried to look at the issues associated with these questions, such as natural gas.

I will only say that with someone with the brains and energy and the willingness to reach out that Sally Jewell has--and she certainly did that based on the number of visits she made to Senators--we may be able to have a natural gas policy where we can have it all, where we can have modest prices for our businesses and consumers that make for a significant economic advantage, we can bring back some of those industries from overseas to Oregon and Ohio and other parts of the country, and we can do it by using, for example, best practices on our public lands as it relates to managing these resources. But we will only have a chance to accomplish those kinds of things if we have someone with Sally Jewell's talents and professional track record of actually bringing people together on these kinds of issues.

I do not believe you can run a multibillion-dollar company, such as REI, which has been Ms. Jewell's current position, without showing the ability to manage, to bring people together, and in particular to anticipate some of the exciting trends in the days ahead in terms of outdoor recreation, where we all have enjoyed the American tradition of the great outdoors. I think few thought it would be a $646 billion contributor to the American economy. But that happens because individuals like Ms. Jewell are willing to step up to take these positions. Because she is from our part of the world in the Pacific Northwest, we are particularly pleased to see her secure this position.

But, again, you do not run--and run well--a nearly $2 billion outdoor equipment company, as Ms. Jewell has, by osmosis but because you are a good manager, you are good with people, and in particular you understand what the challenges are all about.

At this point, I would like to give some time to my friend and colleague. I know that Washington Senators are very interested in being part of this debate, and before we wrap up this afternoon, I also would like to talk about the wonderful track record of Ms. Jewell's predecessor, our current Secretary, Secretary Salazar, who is Senator Murkowski's and my personal friend.

For purposes of this part of the discussion, I would only like to say to the Senate that in Sally Jewell we will have an individual with the experience and with the expertise and the drive to lead the Department of the Interior. I believe she will listen to Senators who have concerns, listen to Senators who want, as Senator Murkowski and so many in our committee have tried to do, to find common ground. So I strongly urge the Senate today, when we vote a little bit later on, to join me in voting to approve Sally Jewell's nomination for the Department of the Interior.

I will now be happy to yield to my friend and colleague from Alaska.

Mr. President, before she leaves I want to thank Senator Cantwell for all her good work. As northwesterners know, and I hope the rest of the country knows, Senator Cantwell is one of those who understands the opportunity in the great outdoors. I know she is climbing a mountain this summer and is always in shape. She is always fit and ready for a mountain.

To have the opportunity to work with folks in the Pacific Northwest, particularly with Sally Jewell's background, as the Senator has eloquently outlined, I think it is going to be an advantage not just for our region but for the rest of our country.

I see our colleague from New Mexico is here. If he would like to make some remarks at this point, we welcome him. I have some additional remarks as well.

Would my colleague from New Mexico like to make any remarks at this time?

All right.

Let me, then, talk for just a few more minutes about Ms. Jewell and some of the challenges ahead of her, particularly in natural resources. Obviously, with authorities, as my colleagues have outlined, that range from managing national parks, to offshore oil and gas development, to protecting fish and wildlife, serving as Secretary of the Interior, it is almost like an extreme sport for multitaskers. You are going to have to juggle. Ms. Jewell knows a little bit about multitasking, as we have outlined, from being a petroleum engineer, a CEO, a conservationist, and a banker.

Particularly in my part of the world, Oregon, there are some especially important challenges. The Federal Government owns most of our land. Particularly in forestry, we need to find a way to bring together all sides--timber owners, environmentalists, scientists--and we need to go in there and clean out millions and millions of acres of overstocked timber stands. We can get that material to the mills. It is an ideal source of biomass, a clean source of energy.

Because we are working to build relationships with the environmental community, we can also find a way to protect old growth as we get to harvest

timber. But it is, again, not going to happen just by osmosis or because somebody waves a wand in Washington, DC. It is going to happen because we have responsible administrators like Sally Jewell who are going to take the time to learn the checker-board pattern of O&C lands and our local communities, and particularly understand some of our traditions that have worked particularly well in the past and I think can be of great benefit as we look to future solutions.

Back in 2000 I had the honor of writing the secure rural schools bill and the timber payments bill with our former colleague, Senator Larry Craig. What we included in that legislation is the kind of model for collaborative forestry that we are going to see Sally Jewell pick up on. We established something called resource advisory councils where, in effect, on the local level people from the timber industry, people from the environmental community, scientists, and a whole host of others--frankly, some people who as a general rule had not done much talking to each other, probably done a lot of litigating against each other--they would use these resource advisory councils to come together and try to find some common ground.

It worked. Regarding these resource advisory councils, when I meet people from the timber industry, from any of the extractive industries, and environmental folks, they say: Use that model. Use that collaborative model that we are seeing used in timberlands in southwestern Oregon as a way that we can build on the opportunity to bring people together.

We have been able to do that with Forest Service lands in eastern Oregon to some extent. I think we can do it also in western Oregon and in the communities that are affected by the Bureau of Land Management lands. Probably to do it we are going to have to extend the timber payments law for another year to give us the time to come up with a long-term solution. I have talked about this with Sally Jewell in the past and about her willingness to see that this is an issue that now finally has to be addressed, addressed in a way that will get the timber harvest up in O&C lands but also protect our treasures. Our old growth is some of the very pristine treasures of America. If we do not figure out a way to promote forest health and go in there and thin out these overstocked stands, these fires that we are seeing--they are not natural fires, they are really magnets for infernos because of years and years of neglect--are going to continue.

I think Sally Jewell is up to the challenge of coming up with the kind of policies for the O&C lands, for the lands in eastern Oregon and those my colleagues talked about in Montana and Colorado and Idaho, and I think she is up to that challenge.

Before we wrap up today I want to take a few minutes and talk about-- I know the Presiding Officer has great affection for him as well--our former colleague, Ken Salazar. Ken Salazar has been Secretary of the Interior throughout the Obama administration to date. It is my view he has done an exceptional job. I think we all understand in the Senate that when Ken Salazar is involved, get ready for a great smile, an enormous amount of energy, enormous amount of intelligence, and someone who, in a very persistent way, is interested in solving problems. Ken Salazar has sure done that in a number of important areas.

For example, before Ken Salazar took office--I am looking at a headline from when there was a huge scandal at the Department of the Interior. I am looking at an article from the fall of 2008 headlined, ``Sex, Drug Use and Graft Cited In The Interior Department.''

Basically, what it talks about is an investigation, a number of reports delivered by the inspector general, that basically document, at the Department of the Interior, a culture of lax ethics. It basically describes something like a dozen current and former employees of the Minerals Management Service, an agency that collected at that time billions of dollars of royalties annually--you basically had an ``anything goes'' kind of environment, and the reports go on and on. It feels more like a litany for a late-night television show.

The reports focused on a culture of substance abuse and promiscuity in what was the Service's royalty and in-kind program--essentially, officials who seemed to be exempt from expense accounts limits, one ethical lapse after another, as documented in these reports. I remember at the hearing, the confirmation hearing, Senator Salazar--it was unusual because he had been my seatmate over the years at the Senate Energy Committee--I said: Senator Salazar, you have to go in there and drain the swamp at the Minerals Management Service.

In fact, he certainly did that. Essentially, the successor agency has been free of scandal. I think that is representative of both the integrity and professionalism that Secretary Salazar has brought to the agency.

Also, I note after the gulf spill he overhauled the offshore drilling practices, ensured that they were beefed up in terms of safety while at the same time allowing for the drilling that is so important to the industry.

I am also going to reflect on Secretary Salazar's accomplishments, mention that he has done yeoman work in terms of promoting green and renewable energy. I note in one of the comments about his departure that Christy Goldfuss, Public Lands Director at the Center for American Progress, stated Secretary Salazar championed ``a new model of conservation which focused on partnerships with private land owners and States'' and ``that approach has paid off with cooperatives in the Everglades in Florida, the Prairie Potholes region of the Dakotas, and other areas.''

I would like to note something else as well about Secretary Salazar. I know Senators on both sides of the aisle would call him when they had those kinds of resource questions. I know Senator Murkowski brought up one of Secretary Salazar's final acts in office today. Under his leadership the State of Idaho and the Fish and Wildlife Service entered into an arrangement so that the State of Idaho's plan for addressing the sage grouse could be implemented. I know this is a critical issue for Senator Risch. He and I talked about it often. I am going to work with him on these issues, and what Secretary Salazar did today is an example of the new kind of partnership that we all are looking to the Interior Department and the states for, and certainly something I want to promote, and I know Senator Murkowski shares that view.

I think it is fair to say that Sally Jewell has very large boots to fill. We all remember Secretary Salazar's wonderful western boots and the anecdotes about them. She has certainly got a challenge to try to step in after a Secretary who has accomplished so much. But as I and Senator Murkowski and the Washington Senators have outlined today, we believe strongly that Sally Jewell is up to this challenge. I hope she will receive a resounding vote in the Senate. I believe we are close to the point where we will be able to vote on Ms. Jewell.

For all the reasons that I and my colleagues have outlined this afternoon, I hope there will be very strong bipartisan support for Ms. Jewell when we vote.

With that I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent all remaining time on the Jewell nomination be yielded back.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, today I rise in support of Friends of the Children, FOTC, a revolutionary organization founded and based in my hometown of Portland, OR, that provides intensive, long-term mentors to highly vulnerable kids in need. FOTC takes a preventive, early intervention approach that breaks the cycle of poverty and helps children grow up to be productive citizens.

The key to FOTC's success is its mentors, called Friends. Each Friend is full time, paid and professionally trained. The Friends are matched with the most severely at-risk children at an early age--selected in kindergarten--and make a 12\1/2\ year commitment to each child, guiding them through high school graduation.

Friends of the Children was founded in 1993 and is celebrating its 20th anniversary this year. My friend Duncan Campbell, founder of FOTC, grew up in poverty himself, and his persistence, hard work and entrepreneurial spirit continue to be a driving force behind FOTC's success.

The goals for FOTC's children are both simple and profound: success in school with a minimum of a high school diploma or GED; avoid involvement in the juvenile justice system, and avoid early parenting. And independent research has shown that Friends of the Children is achieving those goals: 85 percent of FOTC graduates have completed high school, despite 54 percent having a parent who did not graduate; 97 percent of FOTC youth are not involved in the juvenile justice system despite 60 percent having a parent who has been incarcerated; and 98 percent of FOTC adolescents avoid early parenting despite 60 percent having been born to a teen mother.

Friends of the Children works because it treats every child as an individual facing a set of unique circumstances, and takes a committed, hands-on approach to improving those circumstances. It works because it focuses on one-on-one relationships using a rational, intelligent and proven system.

While headquartered in Portland, Friends of the Children now has chapters in four additional cities: Klamath Falls, Seattle, Boston and New York. Today, I am proud to congratulate this remarkable program on its 20th anniversary, and look forward to celebrating many more years of its continued success.

Mr. President, today I rise to reintroduce legislation that will authorize the Bureau of Reclamation to share in the cost of the construction of a new wastewater treatment plant for Hermiston, Oregon. This is the same bill that was passed by the House of Representatives, by voice vote, in the 111th Congress and reported by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee without opposition that Congress as well. I look forward to working with supporters of this bill to advance this important reclamation project.

The city of Hermiston will be responsible for the lion's share of this project. CBO has estimated that the Federal share of the $26 million project would be $7 million or just over \1/4\ of the cost. Once constructed, the plant will provide the Bureau of Reclamation- authorized West Extension Irrigation District with enough additional high-quality water per year to irrigate approximately 600 acres of high value crops. This will have a significant, long-term benefit to the farming industry in the Hermiston area.

The Hermiston project has gotten the sign-off at every level from the local irrigation district to Federal agencies. The city and the bureau have completed the required feasibility report and the bureau of reclamation has formally concluded that the project meets the requirements of the Title XVI cost-sharing program. The regional office of the National Marine Fisheries Service at NOAA has completed a biological opinion approving the project. The city and the West Extension Irrigation District have signed a memorandum of understanding to work together to develop the project. The bureau has concluded its environmental review of the authorization to transfer the water to they district and issued a finding of no significant impact, or FONSI.

The Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation have also recognized the benefits of the project and support it. These benefits include a significant improvement in the quality of water discharged to the Umatilla River in winter and protection of sensitive fish habitat during summer. These benefits have led the tribe to endorse construction of the Hermiston Water Recycling System Improvement Project and the city's effort to obtain Federal funding.

This project will increase agricultural production while improving the local economy, the environment and habitat for endangered fish. I intend to

work with colleagues to complete action on legislation that has advanced so far in previous Congresses.

Mr. President, today I rise to reintroduce legislation that will authorize the Bureau of Reclamation to share in the cost of the construction of a new wastewater treatment plant for Hermiston, Oregon. This is the same bill that was passed by the House of Representatives, by voice vote, in the 111th Congress and reported by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee without opposition that Congress as well. I look forward to working with supporters of this bill to advance this important reclamation project.

The city of Hermiston will be responsible for the lion's share of this project. CBO has estimated that the Federal share of the $26 million project would be $7 million or just over \1/4\ of the cost. Once constructed, the plant will provide the Bureau of Reclamation- authorized West Extension Irrigation District with enough additional high-quality water per year to irrigate approximately 600 acres of high value crops. This will have a significant, long-term benefit to the farming industry in the Hermiston area.

The Hermiston project has gotten the sign-off at every level from the local irrigation district to Federal agencies. The city and the bureau have completed the required feasibility report and the bureau of reclamation has formally concluded that the project meets the requirements of the Title XVI cost-sharing program. The regional office of the National Marine Fisheries Service at NOAA has completed a biological opinion approving the project. The city and the West Extension Irrigation District have signed a memorandum of understanding to work together to develop the project. The bureau has concluded its environmental review of the authorization to transfer the water to they district and issued a finding of no significant impact, or FONSI.

The Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation have also recognized the benefits of the project and support it. These benefits include a significant improvement in the quality of water discharged to the Umatilla River in winter and protection of sensitive fish habitat during summer. These benefits have led the tribe to endorse construction of the Hermiston Water Recycling System Improvement Project and the city's effort to obtain Federal funding.

This project will increase agricultural production while improving the local economy, the environment and habitat for endangered fish. I intend to

work with colleagues to complete action on legislation that has advanced so far in previous Congresses.