Jeff Merkley

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of H. Con. Res. 99, which was received from the House and is at the desk.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. I now ask for its second reading and object to my own request.

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I understand S. 2111, introduced earlier today by Senator Leahy, is at the desk, and I ask for its first reading.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs' Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Protection be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 15, 2012, at 2 p.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Pay for Performance: Incentive Compensation at Large Financial Institutions.''

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on February 15, 2012, at 10 a.m., in room SD 226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Protecting Those Who Protect Us: The Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program.''

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 15, 2012, at 10:30 a.m., in room 215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``The President's Budget for Fiscal Year 2013.''

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 15, 2011, at 9:30 a.m. in room SD G50 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing entitled ``Energy and Economic Growth for Rural America.''

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 15, 2011, at 9:30 a.m. in room SD G50 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand adjourned under the previous order.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, today I wish to congratulate Portland Community College in Portland, OR on its 50 years of delivering high-quality education. Portland Community College has consistently demonstrated its devotion to an accessible education for everyone, serving more than 1.3 million college-age residents in a five-county area in Northwest Oregon. Simply put, the education offered at Portland Community College creates a pathway to the middle-class for so many Oregonians. Students of all ages and backgrounds rely upon this college to improve skills for either career or personal reasons, explore opportunities, complete a high school degree or GED, work towards a bachelor's degree, or complete a certificate or technical degree. Portland Community College's mission has always been to create a foundation of long term vitality by supporting a broad range of needs in northwest Oregon. Fifty years of commitment to accessible life long learning opportunities has produced more than 1.3 million educated members of the Oregon community and our Nation--members who, thanks to PCC, are prepared to attain the American dream. To Preston Pulliams, the district president of Portland Community College, and to the faculty and students of PCC, congratulations on a half century of academic excellence.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I too wish to address transportation infrastructure. I enjoyed the presentation of my colleague from Alaska. Her State certainly has some unique challenges in terms of creating a way for goods and people to move around the State effectively. I look forward to hearing the details of her amendment when we get to the Transportation bill. Meanwhile, we are sitting here in this Chamber--both of us--unable to present our amendments before this body because we are not yet on the Transportation bill. Why would that be? Well, apparently, there are Members of this body who have decided to obstruct the normal ability to assemble the bill that comes from four committees on this floor in order to do nongermane amendments that have nothing to do with transportation and to hold this entire body hostage, to hold hostage those on the left side of the aisle and to hold hostage those on the right side of the aisle, to hold transportation hostage, to hold, if you will, jobs across America hostage. This hostage-taking is just not right. It is just not right that when we should be building infrastructure in America, which is right in the short term for jobs and in the long term for our economy, we are instead sitting here talking about the amendments we would like to offer to make the transportation system work better, to improve upon the bill as it came out of committee. Now, just to refresh the memories of my colleagues, this Transportation bill has gone through four committees successfully. It has gone through Commerce. It has gone through Finance. It has gone through Banking. It has gone through Environment and Public Works. In the course of that, in two of these committees, the bill was unanimous. And in the other two committees, it was not unanimous, but it was bipartisan. So we have had this bill come to the floor with the support of 85 Senators in the four committees. Yet we cannot get the conversation on the floor started. This is enormously frustrating to everyone across America. I found it interesting to see this letter from 2 days ago. I thought I would just read it to you. It has a list of about 20 organizations that are appealing for the commonsense deliberation of transportation infrastructure. It is dated February 13, 2012. It says: To Members of the United States Senate: The time is now to pass S. 1813, [the] Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century [bill], the bipartisan highway bill crafted by the Environment and Public Works Committee. Last Thursday, eighty-five Senators voted to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to S. 1813, clearly demonstrating bipartisan support for passing the highway and transit bill. While we are encouraged by this show of support, the undersigned organizations are concerned that progress may be impeded if non-germane amendments are offered as part of the deliberations on this bill. The organizations that we represent may hold diverse views on social, energy, and fiscal issues, but we are united in our desire to see immediate action on the Senate's bipartisan highway and transit reauthorization measures. This does come from a broad array of organizations. It comes from the AAA, the American Automobile Association. It comes from the American Association of State Highway and Transit Officials. It comes from the American Bus Association. It comes from the American Concrete Pavement Association. It comes from the American Council of Engineering Companies. It comes from the American Highway Users Alliance. It comes from the American Moving & Storage Association, from the American Public Transportation Association, from the Road and Transportation Builders Association, from the American Society of Civil Engineers, from the American Traffic Safety Services Association, from the American Trucking Associations, from the Associated General Contractors of America, the Associated Equipment Distributors, the Associated Equipment Manufacturers, the Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations, the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance, the Governors Highway Safety Association, the Intelligent Transportation Society of America, the International Union of Operating Engineers, the Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association, the National Asphalt Pavement Association, the National Association of Development Organizations, the National Construction Alliance II, the National Stone, Sand & Gravel Association, the Portland Cement Association, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. That is an extraordinary array of groups that are saying: Enough with the posturing on social issues. Let's get to work building the infrastructure of America. Now, one of the amendments a colleague wants us to spend our time on is an amendment that says: If you are the owner of a business, anything you consider to be a health care perspective, you can impose on your employees. There is some interesting humor on this on late-night television. I believe it was Jon Stewart's show, ``The Daily Show,'' in which he said: You know, in my business, I happen to think that humor is the best medicine. So I am going to impose a health care bill or a health care policy on all the folks who work for me that says, if you get sick, you have to go to a comedian for therapy or you have to read a joke book or something like that. I mean, this is not a serious amendment, and it is not about highway infrastructure. While we sit here doing nothing in this Chamber, China is spending 10 percent of its gross domestic product on infrastructure. I had a chance to go to China 14 years ago and then once again last year. In the intervening timespan, they went from a couple ring roads and virtually no connecting roads between major cities to an enormous highway system, an enormous expansion of the infrastructure in major cities, light rail systems, high-speed trains. It was enormously strange to get on a train in Beijing and go at 200 miles per hour to Tianjin. I cannot get on a train here in DC and go 200 miles per hour anywhere. There are vast infrastructure projects across that nation in cities we have never even heard of because they are spending 10 percent of their gross domestic product building the infrastructure that will be the foundation of a future thriving economy. Europe is spending 5 percent--half of what China is spending but still substantial. What are we spending here in America? And when I ask this question in townhalls, normally folks say 1 percent or maybe they venture 5 percent. But depending on how you count it, the answer is 2 percent. So it is a fraction of what Europe is spending and one-fifth of what China is spending. Thus, we are barely able to repair the infrastructure we have, let alone build the infrastructure for the economy of tomorrow. Now here we are, spending our time awaiting the opportunity to have the highway and transit bill here on the floor of the Senate so that we can direct resources to build that infrastructure. But instead of debating, we wait. So I say to my colleagues across the aisle, who somehow have lost sight of the fact that infrastructure is essential for building America, who have lost sight of the fact that the construction industry is flat on its back and ready to go to work, who have lost sight of the fact that right now with low interest rates and an unemployed construction business this is the best time to be investing in infrastructure, the most cost-effective time to be investing in infrastructure, I say to my colleagues who have lost sight of the fact that there is a responsibility to spend a dollar wisely, in construction and infrastructure, now is the time when you get the biggest bang for the buck, now is the time when it is wise. This is not just about the infrastructure that makes our economy work better, it is about creating jobs. Maybe some folks in this Chamber say: Well, we want to play politics with jobs. We do not want people to go back to work. We want America to be broken so we can promote our Presidential candidate over someone else's Presidential candidate. I say that is irresponsible. It is absolutely irresponsible to be playing these political games with the livelihood of working Americans. The bill that came out of the House or the bill that was proposed in the House was a 35-percent reduction in highway spending, infrastructure spending. What would that mean for my State back home? Well, it would mean projects all over the State that address critical chokepoints in transit and transportation will not get addressed. I have a 36-county tour. Every year I go and listen to folks in every one of my 36 counties, and I talk, and I have a special meeting with the county and city officials beforehand. Inevitably, they say: Here are our infrastructure challenges. Please go back and fight to do something so that we have the resources to tackle these challenges and make our economy stronger. So I am here on the floor awaiting the embargo imposed by my colleagues who are not so concerned about infrastructure, who apparently have not talked to their city and county officials who are desperate to take on these chokepoints in their local economy. So I say to them: Stand aside. If you cannot get on board with making America work, stand aside so the rest of us can put America to work. In Oregon, this is also 7,000 living-wage jobs--the difference between the vision the House had on the other side of this building and the vision the Senate had. The Senate vision is not, quite frankly, that ambitious. The Senate vision simply says that we are going to maintain the fiscal 2011 support for the transportation process, for the transportation infrastructure. It is not building beyond that. It should be, but it is not. So it is a modest vision. But compare it to the vision on the other side of the Capitol and the other side of the aisle which says: Let's not only not spend 2 percent, let's cut the entire budget by one-third--let's put 7,000 people out of work in Oregon who are not only building a foundation for their families, they are building the foundation for the future economy. I know that in every State there are similar portions of workers who want to be at work, getting up with a mission in their life to go out and do something useful for their society, to build something useful, and to have a paycheck to put the foundation under their family. The time has long passed for us to be fully debating this bill. I urge my colleagues to come and do the work the American citizens expect of us all.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask to speak as in morning business for up to 10 minutes.

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

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the dedicated service of one of my team members, Claire Griffin. Claire retired this January after a long and eventful career. She stuck with me through thick and thin, from when I was a newly elected State representative to the speakership of the Oregon House, to my service here in the Senate. I first met Claire in 1998 at a candidate training event when I was running for the Oregon House. Claire came as the campaign manager for another candidate who was running in a tough race for an open seat. Claire and her candidate kept making key points, responding to all the questions being asked about how one would run their campaign. I just kept thinking: I am in so much trouble. I wish I had it together--like the two of them. They were enormously outspent in their race and did not win but finished respectably. It was just after the election that the candidate called me and encouraged me to hire Claire for my team, so I did. Thus began a wonderful 13-year partnership. One of the first things I got to know about Claire was that, while she had moved to Oregon, she was steeped in California politics. Her face would light up with stories from her California days. Jesse Unruh, former California assemblyman, treasurer, and speaker figured prominently in these stories. The underlying theme of these stories was, if I had just a fraction of Speaker Unruh's political smarts, we could get a lot more done. Fortunately, Claire did what she could to help provide those political smarts for me. During these years I was working full time for the World Affairs Council of Oregon, in addition to serving as a legislator in the citizen legislator system in Oregon. This greatly increased Claire's workload and, on pretty much a daily basis, it increased her blood pressure. I don't know how I would have gotten through those years without her extraordinary diligence. I kept hearing from constituents how promptly Claire responded when they called my legislative office. In fact, I think a good share of the folks in my Oregon House district thought Claire was the State representative and I was assisting her. Then, in 2003, our collective experience took a big turn. The good news for Claire was that I resigned from my day job as director of the World Affairs Council of Oregon, and I could finally devote myself fully to my responsibilities as a State legislator. The bad news for her blood pressure was that I also decided to make a long-shot bid to be House Democratic leader. Claire always said she was sure I would win. I, on the other hand, was equally sure I would not win. But as so often has proved the case over time, Claire was right and I was wrong. When the first day of voting arrived, it became clear after the first ballot that the race was going to be a close three-way contest, and in the next two rounds of voting one of us won and the other two tied and nobody was out of the race, so the voting continued. I finally won on the fifth ballot, bringing a new challenge for Claire, developing a strong working relationship with the entire House Democratic leadership. Over the next 3 years, Claire had to hear me obsess over the challenge of recruiting candidates in 60 districts, raising funds, developing a policy agenda, and overcoming the sometimes dramatic ups and downs of a State legislature. But together we soldiered on. Starting in the 2005 session, Claire took on a new duty, the essential task of training and mentoring the Democratic legislative assistants. Just as she had impressed me in that first fortuitous meeting in 1998, she impressed her new trainees. Many of the LAs would stop me in the halls of the capitol in Salem, OR, and give thanks for her down-to-earth training and support. In 2007, our world changed again when I became speaker of the house. As always, Claire was the rock of our operation, even as I assumed my new duties and then, shortly after the 2007 session, took on the long- shot race of running for the U.S. Senate. When I was elected to the Senate in 2008, Claire applied her enormous skills to lead my casework team. She and her team have done an amazing job. If you would like to see proof, just visit her office in Portland. The wall is covered in multitudes of thank-you notes. Recently, I received this letter from a constituent: Senator, you hardly need one of your constituents to tell you how great your staff operates but I must try. I recently had a problem with government bureaucracy and I was beyond frustration. Then, 2 years ago, I contacted your office and was put in contact with Claire Griffin. I may have found my government to be unresponsive before this, but from that day forward I had been amazed. . . . My issue did not even affect very many people, but Claire did not let those facts guide her efforts. . . . From the very beginning, she made me feel that my problem was worthy of her total effort. . . . In the end, Claire brought the ``mountain to me'' and a large part of my problem was resolved. . . . The frustration that I experienced for so many years with an unresponsive government has been lifted through [her] actions. Like so many other letters through the years, it closed by thanking Claire. For the past 13 years I have always appreciated Claire's dedication as a staff member, but I have been equally blessed to know her as a person. If anyone should doubt, I can testify that Claire has been the funniest person in Oregon politics. She wields her wit like a sword, and sometimes it stings. But you can't help but smile even when her comments make you smart. She made it, in part, her job to make sure the various offices did not go to my head, and she was very good at this. When she trained legislative assistants in Salem, she made sure they were trained in how to keep their bosses from taking their offices too much to their headbands. Claire has been a full member of my and Mary's extended family. She joined the team when my son Jonathan was 2 years old and my daughter Brynn was a newborn. She has stepped in to cut down the mountains and fill in the valleys, all along this 13-year journey. She gave my son Jonathan the best gift he ever had, a box of eight classic adventure novels rewritten for a little tyke to read. He enjoyed them immensely. She rescued me when I forgot my I.D. card and could not get through airport security. As you can imagine, over the years she has been there through one crisis, one challenge after another. Claire, I couldn't have done it without you. My family could not have done it without you. Thank you for joining our team and our family and working so hard to make this journey a success. Claire, you have carried on the fight to build a better world, and you have carried on that fight with heart and humor. Thank you. We will miss you. Please enjoy your well-earned retirement and, of course, keep in touch. You will always be a valued member of Team Merkley. I yield the floor.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, I rise to address legislation we hope will soon be pending on the floor of the Senate, the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act, better known as the highway bill. This bill is dedicated to rebuilding both our highway and transportation system. It is a critical downpayment on both America's economic recovery and our long-term economic success. Infrastructure is a doubly effective investment. First, in the short term, infrastructure projects create much needed jobs, particularly now when the construction industry is flat on its back. It is one of the hardest hit sectors in this downturn. So rebuilding and repairing our crumbling roads and bridges is one of the best actions we can take to create jobs. Second, infrastructure investment supports jobs in the long term. Think of how many businesses in this country rely on America's infrastructure to move their goods to consumers-- businesses in every State of our Nation, from our most rural communities to our largest cities; small businesses, the largest corporations, and everything in between. Creating the infrastructure that gives these businesses the tools they need to grow is an essential ingredient for future job growth. Yet, over the past generation, our commitment to infrastructure funding at the Federal level has not reflected its role as a key to our competitiveness. China is spending 10 percent of its gross domestic product on infrastructure. Europe is spending 5 percent of its GDP on infrastructure. The number here in America is 2 percent--barely enough to keep our roads and transit systems in repair. There are those here in Washington pushing to cut the investment even further. This is not a recipe for success in the 21st century, nor should this be a partisan issue. When I go home to Oregon I hear from businesses, large to small, from liberal to conservative, telling me that this transportation bill is a good investment in our future. Likewise, more than 1,000 organizations ranging from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to labor groups to local governments have urged Congress to act without delay and pass this highway bill. It is time for Congress to recognize, as our constituents do, that if we want jobs, if we want growth, if we want competitiveness, this is one of the best investments we can make. I am very pleased that the committee responsible for this, the Environment and Public Works Committee, was able to pass a strong bill, and it is going to be merged with work done by three other committees, in all cases with bipartisan votes, and they will bring this bill to the floor with significant support on both sides of the aisle. But our work is not going to be done until we pass this bill through this Chamber, until we pass this bill through the House, and until we put it on the President's desk. This bill is a downpayment on the next phase of our economic growth. It puts construction workers back on the job, creating 1.8 million jobs over the next 2 years. That is a sizable number--1.8 million jobs. That will make a huge difference to construction workers who are still struggling with an unemployment rate of 18 percent--more than twice the national average. Second, this bill gives States the flexibility to direct more of their own funds, putting more power in the hands of local communities to decide what their most important transportation priorities are. Finally, it is an investment in the 21st century system that will move us all forward. Of course, there are always ways that a bill can be stronger, and I will work with my colleagues to bring a number of amendments to the floor. There are, for example, several loopholes in the ``Buy American'' provisions that we should fix. We already recognize in current law that if we are spending taxpayer dollars to buy materials for American infrastructure projects, it makes no sense to shift those dollars overseas when they could stay in our economy and support growth and jobs right here. All highway and transit projects have requirements to use American-made materials for public infrastructure and transit. But two specific loopholes have enabled States to buy Chinese steel instead of American steel and shift jobs out of the country. First, we should close the freight rail loophole in our ``Buy American'' laws. The industrial might of this Nation was built on American railroads, made from American steel. As we update and improve that freight rail system, it is only right that those bridges and tracks continue to be made in America. This summer, construction of a rail bridge in Alaska to a military base was awarded to a Chinese company because the Federal Rail Administration, unlike the Federal Transit and Federal Highway Administrations, doesn't have any ``Buy American'' provision. An American company was ready to build this bridge but because of this loophole, the contract went to a Chinese company using Chinese steel, paid for with American tax dollars. That is a huge mistake. Let's shut that loophole. Second, we should close the segmentation loophole. This loophole allows projects to be split into little pieces in order to bypass the requirement for American-made materials. The Bay Bridge in California was split into nine separate projects instead of one bridge project so that Federal funds and, therefore, ``Buy American'' provisions would only apply to two out of the nine projects. This allowed the bulk of the bridge to be built with Chinese steel and Chinese workers, with American tax dollars. That is a mistake. Even Republican Members of the House know that is a mistake. They have put forward an amendment to close this loophole. Let's close this loophole as well on the Senate side. In addition to closing these two loopholes, we need to strengthen the bike and pedestrian provisions in this bill. Bike and pedestrian systems are essential components in an integrated transportation system, reducing congestion and reducing pollution in a highly cost- effective manner. With gas prices on the rise, many families are looking for increased opportunities to get around on their bikes and on foot. In many communities around the Nation such as Portland and Eugene in my home State of Oregon, and many other cities in Oregon, biking and walking have become a way of life, with families commuting, running errands, and getting around town. When they are able to do that, they decrease the load on the highway system. They reduce the congestion. They reduce the pollution. It is a win-win at every level. But Federal funding has not kept up with this shift. Just as traffic lights and highway lanes are necessary to make our roads safer and faster for drivers, pedestrians and bikers need basic infrastructure to make their trips safe and efficient. Yet there is no dedicated Federal funding stream for bike and pedestrian infrastructure. This is a growing demand in many communities and States. Despite the fact of decreasing congestion on the roads, it is one of the most cost- effective strategies we could possibly follow. Biking and walking infrastructure costs little, but it has a big bang for the buck. In Portland 2 percent of the city's transportation dollars were spent on biking and walking, but the percentage of commuters traveling by bike went up 140 percent. Imagine if all those bikers were in cars by themselves, as are so many of us who drive to work. Congestion in Portland would have increased instead of staying constant over a 10- year period as it has. I am supporting an amendment that will retain the current level of funding at 2 percent for bike and pedestrian projects, and I encourage my colleagues to be smart with the Federal dollar and support this amendment. This bill--the broader highway bill--is a critical investment in our short-term and long-term economic success. Over the next 2 years, it will provide an immediate boost to a struggling construction industry, creating jobs where they are needed most. And over the next generation, it will act as the downpayment we need on infrastructure for our businesses to grow and prosper in the 21st century. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to continue to build support around this bill; indeed, to get this bill to the floor for consideration. While there are some in this Chamber who want to fight social battles by putting unrelated amendments up, there are millions of Americans in need of jobs, there is an infrastructure that needs to be rebuilt, and there are citizens who want us to put aside the games and do the work here so they can do the work back at home. I yield the floor.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, today I wish to thank Rachel Bristol for 29 years of service to Oregon's hungry and congratulate her on her very deserving retirement. Before joining the Oregon Food Bank, Rachel graduated with honors from the University of Oregon with a degree in community development and public administration and served as a VISTA volunteer at the Oregon Food Share in 1983. Her devotion to feeding the hungry soon led her to the job of Acting Executive Director at the OFS. In 1988, she was a key player in the merger with Interagency Food Bank to form the Oregon Food Bank. Just 2 years later, Bristol was named the executive director & CEO of the OFB. Rachel's legacy at the Oregon Food Bank is well-known and widespread. Under her leadership, the food bank expanded from a 10,000 square foot site to 4 facilities totaling more than 155,000 square feet. Rachel's devotion to improving the lives of hundreds of thousands of hungry children has garnered recognition from the University of Portland, the Paul G. Allen Foundation, Feeding America, and the Portland Business Journal, and thanks from the families whose lives have changed because of her hard work and dedication. I will be sad to see Rachel Bristol go, but thank her for her 29 years of service.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I am delighted to rise today in support of the STOCK Act and in support of amendment No. 1481 that my colleague from Ohio has put forward to address the fundamental issues of conflict of interest that reside here in our body. Let me start with the defining principle; that is, there should not be one set of rules for Members of Congress and a different set of rules for ordinary Americans. I think the citizens of the United States of America in every State understand that principle. Everyone else in the country has to abide by rules that say they cannot profit in the stock market from privileged information. There is no reason those rules should not apply to Members of Congress. Indeed, Members of Congress at any given time can hold access to immense amounts of information from previews of economic forecasts, from advanced knowledge of events affecting major employers in their State, to classified defense information that might have implications for, for example, the oil market. Under the right circumstances, all of this information can provide insider knowledge of which ways the markets are likely to move. So I am delighted that this body has voted overwhelmingly to move forward with the STOCK Act. It would make clear that trading on congressional knowledge is no more acceptable than any other form of insider trading, and it would also make financial disclosures for Members of the Senate searchable online, and that is also very important in the principle of transparency. These are important steps, but they do not go far enough. Let's remember that insider trading is extraordinarily difficult to define and extraordinarily difficult to prosecute. Where did you get that information and what truly motivated you to make a particular trade in a stock? And because of that, when the conflict of interest exists, we have stepped forward to say that this must be addressed. We ask members of the executive branch to put aside their individual stocks in situations where the conflict arises. We ask our staff members to set aside and divest themselves of their stock when a conflict of interest arises. We applaud the fact that partners in law firms dealing with cases set aside and divest themselves of stock when the conflict of interest arises. But somehow we have not seen fit to have the debate about our own activities. My colleague put it very well when he said: Why should we allow Members of Congress to hold oil stocks and then vote on issues affecting oil companies? Why should folks be able to invest in renewable energy companies and then fight for tax credits that benefit renewable energy companies? Why should we allow Members to hold stock in pharmaceutical companies and then be deciding on issues such as whether we should have competition in the pricing of pharmaceuticals for Medicare? It is a direct conflict of interest. Any Member of this body who says, I never even gave a passing thought to the impact on my several-hundred-thousand-dollar investment in X, Y, and Z, I must say, well, I honor their thought, but it doesn't address the issue about us as an institution because no one else outside these walls will believe you didn't think a little bit about the impact on your personal financial portfolio when you voted for that tax credit or you voted for that policy that made your investment worth a lot more than it would have been otherwise. The people in America are far ahead of us. During January, I had seven townhall meetings in which the STOCK Act came up several times, and I asked for feedback. I said: How many folks here believe Congress should live by the same rules of insider trading that everyone else in America lives by? And there was not a person who raised their hand in support of having a separate set of rules for Congress. Then I asked the question: Do you think we should go further? Should Members not be allowed to hold individual stocks given that they are making decisions that affect the values of the stock? Again universal support that Congress should address this conflict of interest in the same way we have addressed it for the executive branch or for our staff members. So the citizens of this country understand this. The amendment that Senator Brown is championing and that I am partnering to support has three advantages: It directly prevents conflict of interest, and that is a good thing. Second, it eliminates the appearance of impropriety. It gives Americans confidence that we are addressing issues not with a thought to our personal financial status, and that is a good thing. Third, it is very straightforward to enforce. It is not like insider trading, which is difficult to define and difficult to prosecute. It is very clear-cut. You get rid of your individual stocks and you hold broad mutual funds, you hold your investments in a blind trust. These are reasonable options. So for these three reasons, the Members of this body should debate this. I know many do not agree. A number have come up to me and said they are almost offended by the notion that we would address conflict of interest in this body. I would invite them to come to the floor and converse on this. Yes, it is a longstanding Senate tradition, but there have been a lot of longstanding Senate traditions that didn't work well for the Senate and our place in helping to shape the laws of this Nation. We have changed many of them, and we should change this. I encourage my colleagues to support the amendment Senator Brown has put forward, and I applaud him for doing so.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, my colleagues and I come here today to speak out against the hijacking of American democracy by powerful special interests. It was 2 years ago this last Saturday that the Supreme Court found in Citizens United that unlimited secret funding of campaigns in America is just fine. This is not an opinion shared by Americans who understand that secret donations corrupt the electoral process. It is not an opinion shared by virtually everyone who serves in this body, who has come to this floor and talked about transparency and accountability. Certainly it is a viewpoint that would be very strange to the authors of the Constitution. What are those first beautiful three words of the Constitution? Are they, ``We the powerful''? Are they, ``We the special interests''? No, they are not. Those three words are, ``We the people.'' Virtually every schoolchild in America can tell you that. ``We the people.'' That is what American democracy is all about. The entire Constitution is written for the prosperity and success for the rights of the citizens of the United States of America. Indeed, it was President Lincoln who captured the genius of American democracy in this phrase: A government of the people, a government by the people, for the people. Citizens United is the opposite. Secret unlimited donations are an instrument of the powerful. Secret unlimited donations are an instrument of very large companies. Our Constitution honors free speech. The first amendment is about free speech. It recognizes how important it is that citizens are able to openly debate the merits of candidates and the merits of ideas. But the action of the first amendment is that competing voices must be heard and measured against each other in a marketplace of ideas. But that falls apart under Citizens United. Under Citizens United, the torrent of cash amounts to the equivalent of a stadium sound system drowning out the voices of the people. Let me give you an example of what I am talking about. If you were to take a very successful company in 2008--I will choose one, Exxon, a very profitable company--if it had spent 3 percent of its net profits in 2008, that money would have been equal to the money spent by all Americans on the Presidential campaign. One company, one board room, one proposal, spending 3 percent--only 3 out of 100--of the net profits, equivalent to all money spent by all of the rest of America on a Presidential election. That completely corrupts the concept of a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. Now, in 2012 we are seeing the results. I am going to put up a chart. Take a little comparison. We see that spending in 2008 at this point in the campaign was about $23 million. About half of that, where these blue arrows come to, was coming from independent expenditures. The other half was coming from candidates and parties. Well, here we are 4 years later, post-Citizens United. Look down here, and you will see the very small amount that comes from candidates and parties. You will see this enormous part of the funding coming from independent parties. Ninety-five percent up to this point is coming from independent parties. Well, the number went from 26 to 45, and the amount spent through the ordinary system has dropped massively. This is the special interest impact on American elections. This is the impact of the powerful on American elections. Now, let's look at the campaigns to date for the Presidency. The Iowa caucuses: Newt Gingrich started to rise to the top of the polls, but then super PACs supporting Mitt Romney weighed in. They came to town and they spent a huge amount of money. When caucus night came, Gingrich lost, and he lost badly. Newt Gingrich commented, ``For a State this size,'' referring to Iowa, ``to spend that number of dollars in negative ads aimed at one candidate is pretty amazing.'' It is amazing and it is effective. The story changes when Newt Gingrich had a super PAC of his own that came in with $5 million in South Carolina. Instead of being defeated, he won. The pattern is clear. The message is clear: The vast expenditures of secret powerful money make an enormous difference in who wins elections. Why is this corrupting? Every person on this floor, every one of us sees that pattern. Everyone running across this country sees that pattern. It means, when the powerful come to an individual and say: You are going to run. This is my position. Will you not back it? And they know that company can put millions into their race, that corrupts the process. When a bill is on the floor of this Chamber and someone knows the person backing that bill can spend millions of dollars in the upcoming race, that corrupts this process. That is not what American democracy is all about. So we must change that. We must have full disclosure of donors. We must have timely disclosure of donors. We must have commonsense limitations on how money is raised and how it is spent. That is why with others, I have joined to back Senator Tom Udall's constitutional amendment that makes it very clear that is exactly what can be done. This does not constrain speech; this makes free speech work as designed in the Constitution for the citizens in a government by and for the people. I yield the floor.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, with great pride I wish to congratulate Reed College in Portland, OR, on its 100 years of delivering excellent higher education. Reed College has consistently demonstrated its devotion to academia and to developing the intellectual spirit of its students through demanding curricula, insightful research and stimulating classroom conversation. I am certain that the next century will prove to be as fruitful as the last for Reed and its students and that the strong academic tradition will continue to thrive in the Eastmoreland neighborhood of Portland. Reed's story is much like the city of Portland's. The founders of Reed wanted to approach higher education differently. They wanted to focus on creating leaders who think outside the box and who know that the answers of the past are not necessarily the answers of the future. Reed has put an emphasis on the progress of the individual student, emphasizing intellectual development over the pursuit of grades. Colleges and universities like Reed allow people to continue their pursuit of knowledge, to debate problems and to develop ideas. Higher education is also a driving force behind social mobility and has broken down divisions of race, religion, gender and socio-economic class. Reed College embraces this mission, as reflected in the small class sizes filled with diverse students. One hundred years of commitment to liberal arts education has produced 31 Rhodes Scholars, a great number of Fulbright grant recipients and countless well-educated members of the Oregon community and our Nation. To Colin Diver, the President of Reed College, and to the faculty and students of Reed: congratulations on a century of academic excellence.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I rise to ask unanimous consent of all of my colleagues. Before I explain the unanimous consent request, I will give a little bit of background to S. 1874, which Senator Snowe and I have worked on for some time because of our mutual interest in making the HUBZone process for rural economic development work better. When this process occurs with each census, there is a 2-year nightmare of redtape before communities that should benefit from this economic development opportunity have the ability to do so. Across the country right now, we have rural communities that absolutely need to benefit from this most recent census. They have high unemployment rates. They are hit hard by the drop in exports. They are hit hard by the collapse of the housing communities. Sawmills have shut down. Paper mills have shut down. So many folks come to this floor to talk about cutting redtape and talk about helping the economy in the heart of rural America. They come to this floor and they talk about how important economic development and jobs are. And this is a little fix that takes 1 year out of the bureaucracy. That is why Senator Snowe and I have worked together on this process. Now, twice we have brought this forward, and twice it has been cleared by every Member of this body. Neither time did it make it into a bill that got to the President's desk. So we are coming back once more to say: Let common sense prevail to fix the entanglement in the bureaucracy that is taking away opportunities for rural America. Let's put an end to that today. I will defer to my colleague to speak, and then we will ask for unanimous consent. I yield to the Senator from Maine.

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I thank all of my colleagues. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I thank my colleague. The third sponsor on this bill is Senator Landrieu, the chair of the Small Business Committee. I yield to her.

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Arizona. We appreciate his help. We appreciate the ranking member of the Banking Committee assisting in this matter. I yield to my colleague.

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Banking Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 1874, the HUBZone Qualified Census Tract Act of 2011; that the Senate proceed to its consideration; that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no interviewing action or debate, and any statements related to the bill be printed in the Record as if read.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, we are in the midst of an important debate over whether we will allow all working Americans to be hit with a big tax increase next year. This is a critical measure of relief for our working families in these tough times. During the aftermath of the most severe recession since the Great Depression, many middle-class Americans cannot afford to lose the $1,000 the average family receives from this tax cut. Furthermore, economists across the spectrum believe that extending the payroll tax cut is a critical step in building momentum toward a stronger recovery and minimizing the chances that our economy could slip back into recession. While keeping working Americans from being hit with this tax increase is our first and most important priority, we must also look to what is best for our economy when deciding on offsets for the cost. The offset in the bill that we voted on 2 weeks ago made good sense: asking millionaires and billionaires to fund a fairer share of our national budget. I am concerned, however, about a new offset provision in S. 1944 that increases the guarantee fee on mortgages backed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. I am very wary of placing additional costs on new mortgages given the ongoing crisis in the housing and mortgage markets. Moreover, if there is such a fee increase, it should be used to strengthen our battered housing market. I look forward to discussing other offsets with my colleagues as we continue this debate. This much is clear: Keeping this tax cut in place is a huge factor in the success of our working families and a huge factor in the recovery of our economy. I yield the floor.