Ron Wyden

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN. I want to thank Chairman Rockefeller for the opportunity to have this colloquy with him today on the topic of through the fence agreements. Now, most folks don't know this, but there are a few different developments throughout the country that have houses with plane hangars near airports, and they have what is called a through the fence agreement to use the airway runway. Is the Senator familiar with these agreements?

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I and Senator Merkley and many of the Senators spent a great deal of time working on the question of slots, which, in plain English, is about the right to land a plane. I am very pleased we were able to work out our bipartisan agreement. I outlined why it was so important earlier in the morning. Given all the attention that discussion received, I want to make sure the Senate did not lose sight of another important aviation issue. Chairman Rockefeller has been very supportive of our efforts to try to expand and improve the unmanned aerial systems--what are known as UAS programs--that are so essential for the future of the aviation sector. In this part of the aviation sector, we have seen enormous growth in the last few years. A lot of folks know these systems are critical to military operations. They have been of enormous importance in Iraq and Afghanistan. But people may not be as aware that these unmanned aerial systems also have enormous potential in the civilian sector. I am talking now about firefighting, law enforcement, border patrol, search and rescue, environmental monitoring. Law enforcement in rural areas, that is much of my State, but I know other parts of the country are also very concerned about this issue. As yet, the Federal Aviation Administration has not come up with a good plan for how to integrate these unmanned aerial system vehicles into the airspace. I am pleased that the bill before us includes requirements for the Federal Aviation Administration to work on a plan for these systems and establish test sites for UAS research. It is my hope as we go forward--and Chairman Rockefeller has been very supportive of our efforts; we have discussed this many times--that it is going to be possible to expand these sites. Senator Merkley, Senator Tester, Senator Baucus, Senator Schumer and a number of other colleagues are interested in this issue. This is a chance for the Federal Aviation Administration to finally give these unmanned aerial systems the attention and the priority that is warranted. There is enormous potential in the civilian sector. We talked about it in the military sector. I yield now to the chairman of the committee who has been exceptionally helpful to me, not just on this question of the unmanned aerial systems but for his patience as we worked through the slots issues where we finally got a breakthrough this morning. I am glad to yield to him for any comments he may have.

Mr. WYDEN. As the Senator might know, one place that has had a residential airpark for many decades is in my home State, in a town called Independence, OR. Since 1974, folks at the Independence Airpark have had an agreement with the Independence airport to taxi their planes up to the runway and use it for recreation and travel purposes. But recently, the FAA decided to change the rules on all through the fence agreements and the folks at Independence Airpark and elsewhere may not be able to continue an arrangement they have had nearly 40 years with no significant safety issues and no significant noise complaints. That just doesn't seem fair. So I have introduced an amendment I believe will safely provide a path forward for places like the Independence Airpark to continue to exist. Is the Senator aware of the amendment I filed?

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I appreciate the chance to speak for just a few minutes. I particularly wish to thank Senator Hutchison and Senator Rockefeller and tell colleagues that last night, at 10 o'clock, after hours and hours worth of negotiation, I thought the prospect of working this out was absolutely gone. I thought that once again the Senate would walk away from the idea of trying to come up with a way to have a more competitive market-oriented system in the aviation sector. Obviously, this is not all that needs to be done, but this issue of slots, I would say to colleagues and the folks who are listening, is not about adding more gambling machines; this is about the right to land a plane. In much of our country, we have crowded airports, and folks are very concerned about that because it really relates to the business climate and it relates to quality of life. And it is not just in my part of the country but lots of other parts. So this morning we still had three or four outstanding issues. A group of Senators, on a bipartisan basis, got together. We were just a little ways up here in the building, and in good faith we worked through a variety of issues--issues to make sure everybody was treated fairly in terms of scheduling, issues to ensure fairness with respect to the new flights and to something called conversion, which essentially involves taking short distance of flights and turning them into long distance flights. We still have some matters, obviously, that we are going to have to review with respect to studying this issue and ensuring all airlines have equal access to the markets. It is a sensitive subject, particularly to folks here in Virginia and Maryland. So these are areas that are going to take some additional work, but I think, with the new provisions that have been added, particularly to make sure we would have the five new round-trip flights from Reagan National, ensuring these new slots would be intended for long-distance, for out-of-perimeter, we have moved a long way to ensure that the Senate will go into conference on a bipartisan basis in a unified fashion. Madam President, I would like to take particular note of the extraordinary work done by Senator Cantwell, my colleague from the Pacific Northwest. When you reach an agreement such as this, which had three or four provisions, in effect, that were still being thrashed through this morning, it only comes together when colleagues say they have to find a way to get to some common ground and they can't simply go into a negotiation and have everything their way. Nobody, in my view, in these discussions moved more from the position they were most interested in than Senator Cantwell. Chairman Rockefeller has been right to note that she will be the chair of the subcommittee. I can assure colleagues that no one will do more to protect the consumer, protect competition, and to protect the marketplace that we would like in the aviation sector than Senator Cantwell. She was instrumental last night and this morning, where we practically could have been fed intravenously and she just stayed put and kept negotiating to get to the point where we had an agreement on these slots. I referenced, Chairman Rockefeller, when the Senator was off the floor, that we can continue this kind of cooperation as we have this bill pass the Senate and we go to conference. There is a reason we couldn't resolve the slots issue in the past; that is, despite efforts to come together, we just couldn't get Senators to focus on these three or four outstanding issues that were dealt with this morning. I think we have been fair to the big markets under this agreement as well as the smaller markets. So as the chairman goes into the conference, I think the good will that came about as a result particularly of last night's efforts and this morning's efforts and all the cooperation he and Senator Hutchison have shown--he will be able to take an issue that was seen as absolutely impossible to resolve even as of late last night--because I felt when I walked in this morning that we were just going to hang drapes on this question and possibly the whole bill. I think now this bipartisan effort in good will shown by a lot of Senators on both sides of the aisle, led by the chairman and Senator Hutchison, is going to pay off. It is a very good start to an issue that isn't going to be resolved today, but some of the principles that have been laid out today are going to make a huge difference. I wish to close by saying that my colleague from the Pacific Northwest, Senator Cantwell, who I believe knows as much about aviation as anybody on the planet at this point, did an awful lot to bring people together. I look forward to working with the chairman as we go to conference, and I thank him for his cooperation. I also look forward to talking about some additional issues that he knows I care a lot about--the drones that are so important to central Oregon--but I acknowledge that he has made it possible for us to make an enormous amount of headway today, and I look forward to working with him and Senator Hutchison in the days ahead. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Affordable Housing Preservation and Revitalization Act. I am delighted and honored to be joined in this effort by my good friend and colleague, Senator Jeff Merkley. It has been my privilege to work with Senator Merkley and his staff on an issue that is so important to our State of Oregon and to folks around the country. There has been a lot of talk about housing in the media over the past year. The topic of most of these conversations has been the foreclosure crisis and the continued fallout from the mortgage meltdown. But there is another housing story here, even though it may not get the same attention or airtime: It is the story of homelessness and the struggle to find affordable housing, and for thousands of Oregonians it's a daily reality. Like many States, Oregon is experiencing a sharp rise in homelessness. The most recent count available from Oregon, found 19,208 people homeless on a particular night. That number represented a 12 percent increase in homelessness over 2009. This same count also indicates that 31 percent of those experiencing homelessness were children and the number of homeless families with children rose 33 percent from 2009. In times like these, the Federal Government can hardly stand to lose its stock of affordable housing. Sadly, that is exactly what's happening. As long-term contracts are coming due, many landlords are leaving the business of affordable housing for the private market. As these owners convert to market rents, which is in their economic interest, the low- income tenants will be unable to afford their homes. With fewer and fewer places to turn, many of these folks will end up on the street. Some of these properties have what are known as residual receipts-- funds left over once the operating expenses and owner's distribution have been paid. Currently, this money can only be used in the most extreme of situations. As a result, many of these residual receipts have accumulated for nearly 3 decades. In Oregon alone, estimates suggest there are more than $10 million in untapped residual receipts. Senator Merkley and I believe these funds represent a substantial asset that could be used to help preserve affordable housing projects with expiring contracts. That is why we are introducing the Affordable Housing Preservation and Revitalization Act. Our legislation would permit residual receipts to be transferred with affordable housing properties that are sold to non-profits, provided the non-profits commit to preserving and maintaining the housing stock as affordable. Our legislation isn't a magic bullet and it certainly will not ensure that every American can put a roof over their head. But we think it's the kind of commonsense approach that Americans can get behind. I hope that our colleagues will join us in supporting this bill.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Affordable Housing Preservation and Revitalization Act. I am delighted and honored to be joined in this effort by my good friend and colleague, Senator Jeff Merkley. It has been my privilege to work with Senator Merkley and his staff on an issue that is so important to our State of Oregon and to folks around the country. There has been a lot of talk about housing in the media over the past year. The topic of most of these conversations has been the foreclosure crisis and the continued fallout from the mortgage meltdown. But there is another housing story here, even though it may not get the same attention or airtime: It is the story of homelessness and the struggle to find affordable housing, and for thousands of Oregonians it's a daily reality. Like many States, Oregon is experiencing a sharp rise in homelessness. The most recent count available from Oregon, found 19,208 people homeless on a particular night. That number represented a 12 percent increase in homelessness over 2009. This same count also indicates that 31 percent of those experiencing homelessness were children and the number of homeless families with children rose 33 percent from 2009. In times like these, the Federal Government can hardly stand to lose its stock of affordable housing. Sadly, that is exactly what's happening. As long-term contracts are coming due, many landlords are leaving the business of affordable housing for the private market. As these owners convert to market rents, which is in their economic interest, the low- income tenants will be unable to afford their homes. With fewer and fewer places to turn, many of these folks will end up on the street. Some of these properties have what are known as residual receipts-- funds left over once the operating expenses and owner's distribution have been paid. Currently, this money can only be used in the most extreme of situations. As a result, many of these residual receipts have accumulated for nearly 3 decades. In Oregon alone, estimates suggest there are more than $10 million in untapped residual receipts. Senator Merkley and I believe these funds represent a substantial asset that could be used to help preserve affordable housing projects with expiring contracts. That is why we are introducing the Affordable Housing Preservation and Revitalization Act. Our legislation would permit residual receipts to be transferred with affordable housing properties that are sold to non-profits, provided the non-profits commit to preserving and maintaining the housing stock as affordable. Our legislation isn't a magic bullet and it certainly will not ensure that every American can put a roof over their head. But we think it's the kind of commonsense approach that Americans can get behind. I hope that our colleagues will join us in supporting this bill.

Mr. WYDEN

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

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the Commerce Committee dealing with an exceptionally important bill. I appreciate his courtesy at this time. Mr. President, later in the evening the Senate will confirm Judge Marco Hernandez, who has been nominated to serve as a U.S. district court judge for the District of Oregon. The vacancy that Judge Hernandez will fill is one that Chief Justice Roberts has designated a judicial emergency. Given that, I thank Chairman Leahy, Ranking Member Grassley, Majority Leader Reid, and Minority Leader McConnell for bringing this nomination to the floor today. I also note Oregon has another opening and another outstanding nominee, Mr. Michael Simon, whom I expect to be reported out of committee this week. I hope he, too, will be brought to the Senate floor quickly. It is no surprise that Judge Marco Hernandez was nominated to the Federal bench because his life could serve as a billboard for the American dream. At the age of 17, Marco Hernandez moved to Oregon by himself. Needing to support himself, he took a job as a dishwasher, later found a better job as a janitor, and eventually Marco became a teacher's aide. At that point, Judge Hernandez began taking night classes at a local community college with the hope of one day attending a 4-year college. Finally, he was able to enroll at Western Oregon State College, and he quickly demonstrated his ability to excel. Judge Hernandez earned the Delmer Dewey Award as the most outstanding male student in his class. Following college, Marco went on to graduate from the University of Washington School of Law. From the beginning of his legal career, Judge Hernandez demonstrated a strong commitment to public service. After law school, Judge Hernandez worked at Oregon Legal Services representing farm workers. He then served as a deputy district attorney and was later appointed as a State court judge, a position he has served in for the past 15 years. Judge Hernandez is so well regarded across my home State and across the political spectrum that he has been nominated not by one but by two Presidents of different parties and at the recommendations of two Senators of different parties. Judge Hernandez was first nominated for the district court by President Bush in 2008 when my friend and former colleague, Senator Gordon Smith, led the nomination process. At that time I supported the recommendation of Judge Hernandez. Unfortunately, the 110th Congress was unable to act upon his nomination before adjourning. In the 111th Congress I recommended Judge Hernandez's nomination to President Obama, and I am very pleased that Senator Merkley, who has joined me in the Senate, has been a strong supporter of Judge Hernandez as well. I was very pleased when President Obama announced that he, too, like President Bush, thought it important for Judge Hernandez to serve on the Federal bench. One of the reasons leaders from both political parties support Judge Hernandez is that throughout his judicial career he has demonstrated a special affinity for creative solutions. He implemented an innovative domestic violence program to aggressively pursue offenders and created a new program for mentally ill defendants, which Judge Hernandez continues to oversee. With a tremendous record of public service, innovation, and commitment to justice, no one was surprised when Judge Hernandez was reported out of the Judiciary Committee unanimously. He has had the support of both Republicans and Democrats and a broad range of legal organizations. He has received the strong backing of the Hispanic National Bar Association. In fact, Judge Hernandez would be the first Hispanic article III judge in my home State. It is good news for the people of Oregon, and it is good news for the Federal bench that today the Senate is taking up the confirmation of Judge Hernandez. I strongly urge all my colleagues to join me in supporting an outstanding individual, Judge Marco Hernandez, for U.S. district court judge. I thank, again, Chairman Rockefeller, who is dealing with an extremely important bill for his courtesy for letting me make these remarks about Judge Hernandez. I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Blumenthal.) The Senator from Arizona. Amendment No. 4

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I am proud that my home State of Oregon has so many citizen soldiers and even prouder of the way we take care of them. In the world of veterans' services, one real shining light is Clackamas Community College. I am delighted today to take this opportunity to recognize Clackamas Community College for being selected to receive the Patriotic Employer Award from the National Committee for Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve, ESGR. Clackamas Community College sets an extraordinary example in its care of our nation's veterans that I would hope every institution of higher learning could follow. Clackamas Community College doesn't just stop at educating its students. It serves every member of its community, especially its veterans. When servicemembers come back from the war zone, it takes some adjusting to get back to the routine of life they left behind when they went to serve. As anyone who has gone to college knows, just signing up for classes or applying for student aid can be a confusing experience let alone when you have been out of the university atmosphere for a while, fighting in battle. Clackamas Community College knows that. That is why it created a Veterans Education and Training--VET--Center to serve as a one-stop shop for students who are veterans. The VET Center's staff knows the ins and outs of veterans' education benefits, financial aid and every other veterans' resource and program. The VET Center is also there for student veterans who have a hard time adjusting to being back in school after they have been deployed. The center serves as a safe haven for the veterans to talk things out and get help with problems only another veteran can understand. A veterans' club regularly meets at the VET Center to provide support and camaraderie for the folks they see as family--other vets. Clackamas Community College also pays the VET Center staff to train college staff and faculty about issues that confront student veterans so they are ready when called upon to help. This helps create a tremendously supportive environment campuswide. Through the VET Center, Clackamas Community College works to eliminate obstacles in the admissions process while making every effort to help veterans earn education credit for their military service and experience. Clackamas Community College also recently joined with the Army Reserves to open an Army Strong Community Center--ASCC--on campus. This center, which connects military members and their families with support resources in the community, is the first ASCC west of the Mississippi River. But Clackamas Community College does even more. As a leader in its community, it continues its veterans' outreach outside the campus boundaries. When nearly 1,500 Oregon National Guard soldiers were deployed to Iraq, the college sponsored two Oregon National Guard family reunions to support the families of deployed 41st Brigade soldiers. The college also hosted two yellow-ribbon reintegration events that touched the lives of more than 3,800 soldiers and their families. When the college hosted a veterans job fair last year, they went above and beyond the call of duty to host the largest single veterans' job fair in the State. The college found room for 104 employers that were eager to hire veterans, 106 veterans' services providers and more than 3,100 veterans. The logistics were incredible, and they handled them with ease, even providing lunch and entertainment for the veterans' families while the veterans job-hunted. In recognition of their ongoing efforts, Clackamas Community College was one of 20 colleges and universities to receive a $100,000 grant to serve military veterans from the Wal-Mart Foundation and the American Council on Education. Clackamas Community College used the funds to further their efforts to help veterans transition from military service to college. As an Oregonian and as their Senator, I could not be more proud of Clackamas Community College, its president, Joanne Truesdell, and the heroes they serve. Our citizen soldiers answer the call of our country every day, and Clackamas Community College returns the favor when they come home. It is my honor to thank them for their support of Oregon's veterans.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce two bills that will provide two important communities in rural Oregon with the means to promote their cultural history and their economic development opportunities. These are bills that I introduced in the last Congress and were reported out of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, but were unfortunately not passed in the Senate. I am pleased to be joined by Senator Merkley in this effort. These bills both are intended to help leaders in rural communities in my State continue to grow their economies and make the most of the abundant resources surrounding their communities. As in many rural communities in my State and in many places in the Western United States, not much happens without the Federal Government's involvement. In fact, the Federal Government owns much of the land surrounding these small communities. While many of these lands are treasures, this high percentage of Federal land ownership sometimes limits the ability of local governments and civic leaders to solve problems and serve the public. I firmly believe the Federal Government can and should be an active partner in strengthening communities and improving a region's quality of life. That is why I am re-introducing these two pieces of legislation today. These bills--both passed out of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee in the last Congress with minor modifications-- demonstrate the possibilities that can come when the Federal Government partners with proactive, innovative communities to tackle challenging economic conditions and the pattern of Federal land ownership. My first bill, the La Pine Land Conveyance Act, would convey two parcels of property to Deschutes County, Oregon and a third parcel to the City of La Pine. The bill directs the transfer of Bureau of Land Management, BLM, lands to Deschutes County and the City of La Pine to enable the small town of La Pine to develop rodeo and equestrian facilities, expand a sewage treatment site, and develop the library or other public facilities. La Pine has a set of unique challenges but the town's incorporation has brought a feeling in the community that good things can happen if they work together to make their town as good as it can possibly be. My bill proposes the transfer of 150 acres of BLM land contiguous to the La Pine city limit to enable construction of public equestrian and rodeo facilities that have become increasingly important in La Pine. In addition, the land will provide a location for development of ball fields, parks, and recreation facilities, which can be developed as the town grows and budgets allow. My bill also directs the transfer of approximately 750 acres of BLM lands to Deschutes County for the purpose of expanding the town's wastewater treatment operation. For several years this has been the City's top priority for a land transfer under the Recreation and Public Purposes Act. Although the BLM began an administrative transfer it was not completed, limiting this small community's ability to be competitive for state and federal economic stimulus funds. This project is too important to let languish. Perhaps the most important issue affecting water quality in Deschutes County involves the threat to groundwater and the Deschutes River from household septic systems in southern Deschutes County, the region around La Pine. This project directly reduces nitrate loading into south county groundwater in two ways. First, by enabling expansion of the District service boundary to residential areas where septic systems are generating elevated groundwater nitrate levels; and second, by closing the current location for spreading treated effluent, over a relatively high groundwater area, to this new location which is judged not to threaten groundwater. That is why I am introducing legislation today to make sure this transfer moves forward. The third parcel that would be transferred under this legislation would convey approximately 10 acres to the City of La Pine. This is a parcel right in the heart of downtown La Pine. The City is exploring its use for expansion of library space or using it as an open space. My second bill, S. 271, the Wallowa Forest Service Compound Conveyance Act would convey an old Forest Service Ranger Station compound to the City of Wallowa, OR. In Wallowa County, this Forest Service compound was built by the Civilian Conservation Corps in the 1930's. For many years it was the center of town and this site continues to represent the natural and cultural history of one of Eastern Oregon's most beautiful communities. The City of Wallowa, along with County Commissioners, the local arts organizations, and a broad group of community leaders intend to restore this important example of Pacific Northwest rustic architecture and tribute to bygone times, making a valuable community interpretive center at this site. The conveyance of this property will allow the community to move forward with this project. The community worked hard to list the Ranger Station on the National Register of Historic Places, and ownership by the City will allow this coalition to restore the buildings and again develop a vibrant community center. Oregon Public Broadcasting aired a segment depicting an early 20th century railroad logging community--a significant part of the rich and diverse history and traditions that will be preserved and celebrated as this Forest Service Compound is developed as an interpretive center. I want to express my thanks to all the citizens and community leaders who have worked to build their communities and develop these projects. They represent the pioneering spirit and vision that defines my State.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce two bills that will provide two important communities in rural Oregon with the means to promote their cultural history and their economic development opportunities. These are bills that I introduced in the last Congress and were reported out of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, but were unfortunately not passed in the Senate. I am pleased to be joined by Senator Merkley in this effort. These bills both are intended to help leaders in rural communities in my State continue to grow their economies and make the most of the abundant resources surrounding their communities. As in many rural communities in my State and in many places in the Western United States, not much happens without the Federal Government's involvement. In fact, the Federal Government owns much of the land surrounding these small communities. While many of these lands are treasures, this high percentage of Federal land ownership sometimes limits the ability of local governments and civic leaders to solve problems and serve the public. I firmly believe the Federal Government can and should be an active partner in strengthening communities and improving a region's quality of life. That is why I am re-introducing these two pieces of legislation today. These bills--both passed out of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee in the last Congress with minor modifications-- demonstrate the possibilities that can come when the Federal Government partners with proactive, innovative communities to tackle challenging economic conditions and the pattern of Federal land ownership. My first bill, the La Pine Land Conveyance Act, would convey two parcels of property to Deschutes County, Oregon and a third parcel to the City of La Pine. The bill directs the transfer of Bureau of Land Management, BLM, lands to Deschutes County and the City of La Pine to enable the small town of La Pine to develop rodeo and equestrian facilities, expand a sewage treatment site, and develop the library or other public facilities. La Pine has a set of unique challenges but the town's incorporation has brought a feeling in the community that good things can happen if they work together to make their town as good as it can possibly be. My bill proposes the transfer of 150 acres of BLM land contiguous to the La Pine city limit to enable construction of public equestrian and rodeo facilities that have become increasingly important in La Pine. In addition, the land will provide a location for development of ball fields, parks, and recreation facilities, which can be developed as the town grows and budgets allow. My bill also directs the transfer of approximately 750 acres of BLM lands to Deschutes County for the purpose of expanding the town's wastewater treatment operation. For several years this has been the City's top priority for a land transfer under the Recreation and Public Purposes Act. Although the BLM began an administrative transfer it was not completed, limiting this small community's ability to be competitive for state and federal economic stimulus funds. This project is too important to let languish. Perhaps the most important issue affecting water quality in Deschutes County involves the threat to groundwater and the Deschutes River from household septic systems in southern Deschutes County, the region around La Pine. This project directly reduces nitrate loading into south county groundwater in two ways. First, by enabling expansion of the District service boundary to residential areas where septic systems are generating elevated groundwater nitrate levels; and second, by closing the current location for spreading treated effluent, over a relatively high groundwater area, to this new location which is judged not to threaten groundwater. That is why I am introducing legislation today to make sure this transfer moves forward. The third parcel that would be transferred under this legislation would convey approximately 10 acres to the City of La Pine. This is a parcel right in the heart of downtown La Pine. The City is exploring its use for expansion of library space or using it as an open space. My second bill, S. 271, the Wallowa Forest Service Compound Conveyance Act would convey an old Forest Service Ranger Station compound to the City of Wallowa, OR. In Wallowa County, this Forest Service compound was built by the Civilian Conservation Corps in the 1930's. For many years it was the center of town and this site continues to represent the natural and cultural history of one of Eastern Oregon's most beautiful communities. The City of Wallowa, along with County Commissioners, the local arts organizations, and a broad group of community leaders intend to restore this important example of Pacific Northwest rustic architecture and tribute to bygone times, making a valuable community interpretive center at this site. The conveyance of this property will allow the community to move forward with this project. The community worked hard to list the Ranger Station on the National Register of Historic Places, and ownership by the City will allow this coalition to restore the buildings and again develop a vibrant community center. Oregon Public Broadcasting aired a segment depicting an early 20th century railroad logging community--a significant part of the rich and diverse history and traditions that will be preserved and celebrated as this Forest Service Compound is developed as an interpretive center. I want to express my thanks to all the citizens and community leaders who have worked to build their communities and develop these projects. They represent the pioneering spirit and vision that defines my State.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I want to take a quick minute or two to talk about an amendment that will be called up later in the afternoon on my behalf to expand and improve the unmanned aerial systems--known as UAS programs--that are part of the Federal Aviation Administration reauthorization bill. My amendment is No. 27. I thank Chairman Rockefeller and his staff because they have worked closely with me on this and several other amendments. Growth in the unmanned aerial systems sector of the aviation business has been extraordinary in the last few years. I think it is well known that these systems are proven critical to military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. But they also have tremendous potential in the civilian sector whether it is for firefighting, law enforcement, border control, search and rescue, or environmental monitoring. Law enforcement uses for this technology would be especially helpful in rural areas like much of my home State of Oregon. Unfortunately, the FAA has not yet been able to come up with a real plan for how to integrate these unmanned aerial systems vehicles into our airspace. That is why I am pleased the Rockefeller bill before us includes requirements for the FAA to get to work on a plan in this area and to establish test sites for unmanned aerial systems research. The bill, however, includes only four of these sites. I would like to see us be bolder, particularly in an area where I think there is so much opportunity for innovation, development, and job creation. This amendment would expand the number of sites to 10, which would require the FAA to explore the most useful and safest way for unmanned aerial systems to be integrated into the airspace. The amendment would require at least one of these test sites to investigate how unmanned aerial systems can be useful in monitoring public land. As the chairman of the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests, I have heard repeatedly from law enforcement officials that remote public lands are too often being used as a place for criminals to grow drugs without detection. The Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service, two agencies that work in this field, simply don't have the resources to use expensive helicopters and do all the necessary work to root out these illegal operations. I will conclude by saying that I believe unmanned aerial systems could be a cost-saving way to address this problem. By getting the ball rolling with my amendment, I believe it will be possible to more significantly fight these reprehensible drug operations that are taking place on public lands. I hope this amendment, No. 27, will be accepted as part of the Rockefeller legislation, and I look forward to working with the bill's managers to encourage the development in this sector, which I think is right at the heart of what we need to do to promote innovation in the aviation field. I thank Chairman Rockefeller. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce the Empowering States to Innovate Act with my colleagues, Senators Scott Brown and Mary Landrieu. At a time when we are looking for ways to bring this country together to deal with the most contentious issues of our time, we ought to be supporting innovation. We ought to be supporting unleashing creative kinds of approaches to deal with domestic issues. That is the foundation of this legislation. What Senators Brown, Landrieu and I are seeking to do is to show it is possible on a significant issue--I think we all understand health care is about as important as it gets--that we can come together, and facilitate this kind of innovation. It is pretty clear that what works in Springfield, OR, may not be exactly ideal for Springfield, MA. But what we can do is come up with a way to provide more flexibility and particularly more choice and more competition for our States and other States around the country. If we can just move away from a Federal cookie-cutter approach and encourage the kind of creative thinking we have seen in Oregon and in Massachusetts and other parts of the country, I think we will be well served and will be in a position to better contain health care costs. I think we all understand that how to rein in these medical costs that are gobbling up everything in sight is first and foremost on the minds of our constituents. The Empowering States to Innovate Act encourages additional innovative approaches in States, approaches that are tailored to the needs of States' own residents, that will help us, in my view, to promote choice and competition in the American health care system. As long as they meet certain requirements as far as coverage and affordability are met, the States are free to do whatever they choose. I just offer up my own judgment that right now, at a time when most Americans still don't get much choice in their health care coverage, this is an ideal opportunity that both Democrats and Republicans can support. As States seek to go forward with this approach, they can make their own choices. In particular, what I have been concerned about, after talking to health policymakers over the last few months, is if, in the State of New York, for example, you go out and set up a process to comply with the legislation for purposes of 2014 and you see that the waiver, as now constituted under 1332, starts in 2017, you say: How am I going to reconcile those two? Am I going to set up one approach for 2014 and then do another approach in 2017? It is going to put us through a lot of bureaucratic water torture to try to figure out how to synchronize those two dates. So it only makes sense to speed it all up and make it possible for everybody to get started in 2014. We have outlined the two key changes in the legislation that is law today. The first change is to make the waivers effective in 2014 rather than in 2017 so States only have to change their systems once. The second thing the Empowering States to Innovate Act does is it requires the Department of Health and Human Services to begin to review State waiver applications within 6 months of enactment of the legislation. This would allow States early notification of whether their State waivers have been approved and would give them adequate time to roll out their State-specific plans. I think this, too, will help us create more competition, more choice, and more affordability in American health care because it will give the States adequate time to gear up. That is the philosophy behind the Empowering States to Innovate Act, whether one likes one particular approach or another. Clearly, there will be great diversity of approaches tried at the State level. This legislation offers an opportunity for States to engage in a ``race to the top'' for what will deliver the best health care choices and options to their constituents. This provides a chance for States to do it better. I look forward to working with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to give States that chance. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce the Empowering States to Innovate Act with my colleagues, Senators Scott Brown and Mary Landrieu. At a time when we are looking for ways to bring this country together to deal with the most contentious issues of our time, we ought to be supporting innovation. We ought to be supporting unleashing creative kinds of approaches to deal with domestic issues. That is the foundation of this legislation. What Senators Brown, Landrieu and I are seeking to do is to show it is possible on a significant issue--I think we all understand health care is about as important as it gets--that we can come together, and facilitate this kind of innovation. It is pretty clear that what works in Springfield, OR, may not be exactly ideal for Springfield, MA. But what we can do is come up with a way to provide more flexibility and particularly more choice and more competition for our States and other States around the country. If we can just move away from a Federal cookie-cutter approach and encourage the kind of creative thinking we have seen in Oregon and in Massachusetts and other parts of the country, I think we will be well served and will be in a position to better contain health care costs. I think we all understand that how to rein in these medical costs that are gobbling up everything in sight is first and foremost on the minds of our constituents. The Empowering States to Innovate Act encourages additional innovative approaches in States, approaches that are tailored to the needs of States' own residents, that will help us, in my view, to promote choice and competition in the American health care system. As long as they meet certain requirements as far as coverage and affordability are met, the States are free to do whatever they choose. I just offer up my own judgment that right now, at a time when most Americans still don't get much choice in their health care coverage, this is an ideal opportunity that both Democrats and Republicans can support. As States seek to go forward with this approach, they can make their own choices. In particular, what I have been concerned about, after talking to health policymakers over the last few months, is if, in the State of New York, for example, you go out and set up a process to comply with the legislation for purposes of 2014 and you see that the waiver, as now constituted under 1332, starts in 2017, you say: How am I going to reconcile those two? Am I going to set up one approach for 2014 and then do another approach in 2017? It is going to put us through a lot of bureaucratic water torture to try to figure out how to synchronize those two dates. So it only makes sense to speed it all up and make it possible for everybody to get started in 2014. We have outlined the two key changes in the legislation that is law today. The first change is to make the waivers effective in 2014 rather than in 2017 so States only have to change their systems once. The second thing the Empowering States to Innovate Act does is it requires the Department of Health and Human Services to begin to review State waiver applications within 6 months of enactment of the legislation. This would allow States early notification of whether their State waivers have been approved and would give them adequate time to roll out their State-specific plans. I think this, too, will help us create more competition, more choice, and more affordability in American health care because it will give the States adequate time to gear up. That is the philosophy behind the Empowering States to Innovate Act, whether one likes one particular approach or another. Clearly, there will be great diversity of approaches tried at the State level. This legislation offers an opportunity for States to engage in a ``race to the top'' for what will deliver the best health care choices and options to their constituents. This provides a chance for States to do it better. I look forward to working with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to give States that chance. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. That seems like a commonsense approach to me. I thank my colleague for his help on secret holds. We are achieving a big victory for transparency at the beginning of this Congress.

Mr. WYDEN. I thank the Senator because I think that is an important point because the bipartisan resolution clearly establishes the responsibility of all Senators to go public with their holds and the understanding that the leaders will not honor secret holds. In addition, a concern that has been expressed is the lack of an enforcement mechanism in case there is a breakdown in this process, that it does not work as intended. Will the Senator from Iowa address that point? I believe our resolution addresses that concern as well.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I thank our colleague, our invaluable ally in this fight. Senator Grassley, I believe, is on his way. But the Senator from Tennessee has had many discussions on this topic with me and other Senators, and I wish to thank him for all the time and effort he has put into it. I yield him whatever time he would like.

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, there has been much discussion about the proposed rules reforms and how far they go. To those who say that this resolution doesn't go far enough, I ask, why have the friends of secrecy fought so hard for so long to allow Senators to anonymously block legislation and nominations? The fact is this resolution deals with a sweeping, almost unparalleled legislative power--the ability of one Senator to anonymously block a bill or a nomination from going forward. That is not right. Senator Grassley, Senator McCaskill, and I have worked with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to say that if you want to exercise that extraordinary power, you ought to do it in the sunlight. There ought to be public disclosure. There ought to be transparency. I yield the remainder of our time to Senator Grassley, who has championed this cause along with Senator McCaskill.

Mr. WYDEN. Yes, the Senator from Iowa makes a good point. Our resolution turns the Notice of Intent to Object calendar into a one- stop shop for recording information about objections made to covered requests. At the same time, some have asked us--what happens if a matter that had been objected to later passes? Shouldn't the clerk just remove the relevant information from the Notice of Intent to Object calendar in that situation? It seems to me that makes sense and such action by the clerk would be keeping with the intent of our resolution.

Mr. WYDEN. I thank the Senator from Iowa, because with this colloquy he has laid it out very well. The fact is we have been at this so that it sometimes feels as though it has been the longest running battle since the Trojan War, given the fact we have had leadership agreements, we have had amendments, and we have had a watered-down version of the law. Today, we finally have an opportunity to ensure this unconscionable practice of secrecy that keeps the American people, millions of Americans, from learning about who is blocking a bill or a nomination, and that practice is finally eliminated, and I thank my colleague. It has been a long fight and a pleasure to work with my friend from Iowa and to have the energy and enthusiasm of Senator McCaskill, who has given this cause a huge push. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Merkley as a cosponsor to the bipartisan Senate resolution eliminating secret holds.

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, as Senator Grassley has said, Senator Grassley, Senator McCaskill, and I have always maintained that there is no legitimate reason for Senators to keep holds they have placed with their leaders secret for any period of time. In fact, for quite some time, we have made a practice of immediately disclosing any hold we place in the Congressional Record, and that has been at the heart of our resolution, in my judgment. Would my friend from Iowa agree?

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce critical forest legislation for my home State of Oregon. This is legislation that I introduced in the last Congress. Unfortunately, despite making significant progress and gaining the support of the administration, my legislation did not get passed before Congress adjourned. But the need remains as great as ever and it remains one of the top priorities for my State. So today, early in this new Congress, I am reintroducing the bill and sending the message that this urgent priority needs to get done. I am pleased that my colleague from Oregon, Senator Merkley, has joined me today in introducing this bill. Like me, he recognizes the severe needs in our forests and in the forest dependent communities. For too many decades, Oregon has been at war with itself over the fate of its forests. Nowhere has the negative impact of this battle been greater than in Oregon's eastside forests. Over-logging and disastrous fire suppression policies of the past gave way over time to excessive litigation and gridlock. That excessive litigation and gridlock has resulted in millions of acres of Oregon's Federal forest landscape containing choked, overstocked stands that are at great risk of uncharacteristic catastrophic fires, insect infestations and disease. Controversial logging that holds the industry and the environment hostage to competing ideologies serves no one's interest. The focus should be on areas that everyone agrees desperately need management: to thin and restore our forests and watersheds, and to reduce hazardous fuels putting our forests at risk. That is why I introduced legislation in the last Congress to begin to tackle the challenges facing Oregon's Eastside forests. Leaders on both sides of these difficult issues came together with me after intense negotiations to bring peace, jobs, and a healthier tomorrow to the 8.3 million acres on the 6 Federal forests in eastern and central Oregon. Those leaders realized that each side had armed itself politically enough to survive, but not enough to succeed. With each passing month and each attempted timber sale and threatened lawsuit, our inability to take action, our inability to address the needs of Oregon's declining forests means that they are growing more at risk of preventable fire and disease. Leaders on both sides of this issue realized that unless something fundamental changes, Oregon's Federal forest landscape, with millions of acres of choked, at-risk forest in desperate need of management, millions of acres of old growth, species habitat, and watersheds face an uncertain future. Timber executives came together with leaders of the Oregon environmental community to take shared responsibility for saving our endangered forests, following months of intense negotiations to reach an agreement on legislation. Since my bill was introduced in the last Congress, there have been continuing discussions and negotiations as my stakeholders and I have worked with the Administration and the Energy and Natural Resources Committee to get the bill ready for passage in the Senate. Today's bill reflects some of those changes, but it preserves the core elements of the agreement that I crafted with the stakeholders to this agreement--a push to increase the timber produced from our national forests, landscape scale restoration efforts and protections for watersheds and old growth. Today in eastern Oregon we are down to only a small handful of surviving mills. Without far greater certainty of supply and an immediate increase in merchantable timber, more mills will close. If that happens, our Eastside forests will pay the price. Without mills to process saw logs and other merchantable material from forest restoration projects, there will be no restoration of our Eastside forests. Fortunately leaders on both sides of this issue recognize that and that is why they set aside their differences to forge an agreement. Job One must be saving the remaining infrastructure of forestry-- Oregon's mills and its timber workers--in central and eastern Oregon while preserving our old growth and watersheds. My stakeholders and I worked very hard on the agreement and to advance this legislation. As I predicted, we have already seen our share of challenges. But I have great faith that we will stand firm to see this legislation implemented. I am not going to let Congressional gridlock stop the historic progress that has been made on forestry issues in Oregon. This issue is simply too important. I also want to point out that none of our efforts will succeed unless Oregon Federal forests are also adequately funded to properly manage and restore these valuable Federal assets. Together, as a team, we will fight for the funding to put our people back to work and restore the health of our forests. I want to thank my stakeholders for their support and tireless work in crafting this agreement and ultimately in working with me through the legislative process. I am proud to introduce this legislation today, and I am going to keep working with all the folks in my State who are willing to talk in good faith about restoring our eastside forests.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. (for himself, Mr. Grassley, Mrs. McCaskill, Mr. Brown of Ohio, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Inhofe, Mrs. Murray, Mrs. Shaheen, Mr. Udall of Colorado, Mr. Whitehouse, Ms. Klobuchar, Ms. Collins, Mr. Durbin, Mrs. Gillibrand, Mr. Tester, Mr. Johanns, Mr. Merkley, Mr. Begich, and Mr. Manchin) submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to: S. Res. 28 Resolved,

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce critical forest legislation for my home State of Oregon. This is legislation that I introduced in the last Congress. Unfortunately, despite making significant progress and gaining the support of the administration, my legislation did not get passed before Congress adjourned. But the need remains as great as ever and it remains one of the top priorities for my State. So today, early in this new Congress, I am reintroducing the bill and sending the message that this urgent priority needs to get done. I am pleased that my colleague from Oregon, Senator Merkley, has joined me today in introducing this bill. Like me, he recognizes the severe needs in our forests and in the forest dependent communities. For too many decades, Oregon has been at war with itself over the fate of its forests. Nowhere has the negative impact of this battle been greater than in Oregon's eastside forests. Over-logging and disastrous fire suppression policies of the past gave way over time to excessive litigation and gridlock. That excessive litigation and gridlock has resulted in millions of acres of Oregon's Federal forest landscape containing choked, overstocked stands that are at great risk of uncharacteristic catastrophic fires, insect infestations and disease. Controversial logging that holds the industry and the environment hostage to competing ideologies serves no one's interest. The focus should be on areas that everyone agrees desperately need management: to thin and restore our forests and watersheds, and to reduce hazardous fuels putting our forests at risk. That is why I introduced legislation in the last Congress to begin to tackle the challenges facing Oregon's Eastside forests. Leaders on both sides of these difficult issues came together with me after intense negotiations to bring peace, jobs, and a healthier tomorrow to the 8.3 million acres on the 6 Federal forests in eastern and central Oregon. Those leaders realized that each side had armed itself politically enough to survive, but not enough to succeed. With each passing month and each attempted timber sale and threatened lawsuit, our inability to take action, our inability to address the needs of Oregon's declining forests means that they are growing more at risk of preventable fire and disease. Leaders on both sides of this issue realized that unless something fundamental changes, Oregon's Federal forest landscape, with millions of acres of choked, at-risk forest in desperate need of management, millions of acres of old growth, species habitat, and watersheds face an uncertain future. Timber executives came together with leaders of the Oregon environmental community to take shared responsibility for saving our endangered forests, following months of intense negotiations to reach an agreement on legislation. Since my bill was introduced in the last Congress, there have been continuing discussions and negotiations as my stakeholders and I have worked with the Administration and the Energy and Natural Resources Committee to get the bill ready for passage in the Senate. Today's bill reflects some of those changes, but it preserves the core elements of the agreement that I crafted with the stakeholders to this agreement--a push to increase the timber produced from our national forests, landscape scale restoration efforts and protections for watersheds and old growth. Today in eastern Oregon we are down to only a small handful of surviving mills. Without far greater certainty of supply and an immediate increase in merchantable timber, more mills will close. If that happens, our Eastside forests will pay the price. Without mills to process saw logs and other merchantable material from forest restoration projects, there will be no restoration of our Eastside forests. Fortunately leaders on both sides of this issue recognize that and that is why they set aside their differences to forge an agreement. Job One must be saving the remaining infrastructure of forestry-- Oregon's mills and its timber workers--in central and eastern Oregon while preserving our old growth and watersheds. My stakeholders and I worked very hard on the agreement and to advance this legislation. As I predicted, we have already seen our share of challenges. But I have great faith that we will stand firm to see this legislation implemented. I am not going to let Congressional gridlock stop the historic progress that has been made on forestry issues in Oregon. This issue is simply too important. I also want to point out that none of our efforts will succeed unless Oregon Federal forests are also adequately funded to properly manage and restore these valuable Federal assets. Together, as a team, we will fight for the funding to put our people back to work and restore the health of our forests. I want to thank my stakeholders for their support and tireless work in crafting this agreement and ultimately in working with me through the legislative process. I am proud to introduce this legislation today, and I am going to keep working with all the folks in my State who are willing to talk in good faith about restoring our eastside forests.