Ron Wyden

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. I express my appreciation to the Senator from Iowa for giving me the opportunity to work with him. He and I have pursued a lot of issues in the past. Very often those issues are part of television news debates and the like. Obviously, the secret hold would not be something on Main Street in Des Moines or Portland that people know about. This is the time to get this right once and for all. We sought to do it literally for a decade. A number of majority leaders, Democratic and Republican, said they wanted to get this done. Yet as of this day, I personally believe it continues to be abused and flagrantly so. At a time when the American people are looking at these challenging economic circumstances, they deserve a government that is truly open, truly accountable, and truly transparent. That has been what has guided our bipartisan efforts over this last decade. I appreciate the Senator coming to the floor this evening. There are not that many opportunities to advance a truly bipartisan agenda. He has given us the opportunity to do that tonight. I look forward to working with my colleague to once and for all get secret holds abolished in the Senate.

Mr. WYDEN. One additional point, is it the Senator's sense, because we have talked about this often as we have been watching the spectacle of all these secret holds, that the central problem is it is triggered too late and it takes too long to kick in? Is that a fair statement of what needs to be changed? We need to get the openness earlier? It needs to be triggered earlier, and it needs to get into the public domain earlier; is that correct?

Mr. WYDEN. And with respect to transparency, what he and I have focused on all these years, people asked: Are you trying to abolish a hold? I think he and I have said we believe Senators ought to have a right to weigh in on something important. But at a time when the public wants transparency and openness and accountability, a Senator who wants to use what the Senator has said is an extraordinary power, the real public interest is satisfied by that Senator having to disclose promptly that they are imposing a hold; is that correct?

Mr. WYDEN. First, let me tell the Senator from Iowa how much I have enjoyed working with him on this. We have had, as incredible as it sounds, a 10-year campaign to try to end secrecy in the Senate, just so people know a little bit about it. I always think when people hear about a hold in the Senate, they probably think it is a hair spray or a wrestling move or something like that. Isn't it correct that a hold, the ability to block a nomination or a piece of legislation, is one of the most powerful tools a Member of the Senate has today to influence policy?

Mr. WYDEN. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, last year, several of my colleagues and I wrote to Secretary Gates requesting a clear policy through which the Department of Defense would encourage renewable energy development while maintaining necessary protections for military missions. Among other recommendations, to facilitate the development of renewable energy projects consistent with national security needs, we specifically pointed to the Department's need to formally consolidate all decisionmaking into a single office to limit unnecessary conflict between the Department and renewable energy development. At that time, there were a wide array of projects where the Department of Defense had objected very late in the permitting process. Since that time, conflicts between the siting of renewable energy projects and defense missions have only intensified in scale and now threaten to impede currently planned and permitted renewable energy projects, placing billions of investment dollars and thousands of new U.S. jobs at risk. Recent attempts to work with DOD for various compromise and alternative solutions, such as expanding current radar capability, has produced few results. For example, in my State of Oregon, the planned Shepherds Flat Wind Farm would produce more than 850 megawatts of electricity. It would be the largest wind farm in the world. Planners worked with numerous Federal agencies and cleared the project with the Navy. But just a month before groundbreaking, the Air Force halted the project because they believe it could potentially interfere with a radar array in eastern Oregon. Attempts to work with DOD, by the planners and by my office, have met with stiff resistance and no offers of compromise solutions. There is an attitude that resolving conflicts with civilian energy projects is simply not one of DOD's missions. The grim reality is that the Shepherds Flat Wind Farm is only the beginning of the problems in Oregon. The objection to this project will also halt at least 10 other projects in the works totaling over 3,000 megawatts of renewable energy. DOD appears content with the status quo. But status quo doesn't reduce our independence on foreign oil or generate new jobs. Regrettably, it appears that the Department is not interested in identifying possible solutions. This surprises me given the critical nature of our future renewable energy program and its impact on our Nation's national security. Instead of being a partner in the process, DOD appears content to be a roadblock. It is long past time for the Department to give this issue the attention it requires and work to find solutions instead of just being a problem. Therefore, until I receive assurance that DOD is taking appropriate action to address the increasing conflict between national renewable energy policy and national defense, I will object to any unanimous consent agreement for the nominations of Sharon E. Burke, to be Director of Operational Energy Plans and Programs at DOD; Katherine Hammack, to be Assistant Secretary of the Army; and Elizabeth A. McGrath, to be Deputy Chief Management Officer at DOD. I place these holds reluctantly. I am hopeful that the Department will take immediate and appropriate action to resolve current renewable energy conflicts and prevent future ones from occurring. Once that happens, I will be able to withdraw my holds so that DOD nominations can once again move through the Senate.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read three times and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and that any statements be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 4957, which was received from the House and is at the desk.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, when I have come to the floor over the last few months, I have always tried to focus on ways to bring parties together, both sides to work for common solutions--whether it's health care, the new tax reform bill Senator Gregg and I have introduced, or the Build America Bonds program put together by Senator Thune and I, which has clearly been a huge success in terms of revolutionizing the system for funding transportation and infrastructure. Senator Cornyn and I are working on a significant crime bill. So I am always going to come to this floor and try to be bipartisan and bring both sides together. On this question of helping folks who are so desperately hurting today--including so many in my State, where we have a very high unemployment rate--I want to suggest a bipartisan path forward that I hope we can look at in the days ahead. I see my friend from Georgia here, who also wants to work on these major economic issues in a bipartisan way. When you listened to colleagues last night and this morning, it seems to me there is agreement on two fundamental principles. One is that it is absolutely essential to help folks who are hurting now. We have millions of Americans walking on an economic tightrope; balancing their food bill against their fuel bill; trying to pay for essentials; going to bed every night, whether in Colorado, Oregon, or Georgia, figuring out if they are going to be able to pay the bills when they wake up in the morning. So there is agreement on both sides that you have to help folks who are hurting now. There is also agreement that we have to deal with this deficit, and the spending issue which is contributing to the deficit for the long term. So, in effect, we start the possibility of a bipartisan strategy around agreement in two key areas: We have to help folks now who are hurting, and we have to deal with those major deficits, the revenue and spending problems, in the long term. What there is disagreement on, it seems to me, is the timing of these particular debates. I and others feel very strongly that it is just not right to compound the hurt Americans are suffering, even for a few weeks, even for a few days. That is why we very much want, before we go home, to have this worked out and to get this unemployment benefits extension to them. We also recognize that getting at this long-term budget issue quickly is a matter of national urgency. I sit on the Budget Committee. We are going to have a chance to do that in April, within 30 days. So what you see is, in effect, all of the various ideas with respect to extending unemployment so that folks who are hurting so badly do not go without for a short period of time--a week, 2 weeks, 30 days--a variety of different approaches. All of those time periods are shorter than the time period for when we will have an our opportunity to make tough decisions for the long term that we have heard Democrats and Republicans talking about this morning. So I hope that we can get back to working in a bipartisan way around those two areas of agreement that will help folks who are hurting now, help them quickly, not have them suffer any more, even for a few additional days, and that we recognize that in April, on the Budget Committee on which I serve, we will have the opportunity to tackle the larger budget issues. We have very strong bipartisan leadership between Senator Conrad and Senator Gregg. A lot of us thought they were right on their debt commission. I supported that, supported it for a long time. So we have an opportunity to make those long-term budget decisions Democrats and Republicans rightly have said are so important, beginning next month. So let's do both. Let's help people who are hurting now and recognize how serious the challenge is with respect to the long term as well. The only other point I would make with respect to the unemployment extension is a point made by a number of our country's leading economists who are advising both Republicans and Democrats, again, in a bipartisan fashion. Mark Zandi, for example, one of our leading economists who is relied on by individuals of both political parties, has pointed out that for every dollar of unemployment, our country gets $1.64 in return. The folks who are unemployed spend their benefits as quickly as they can get them. They spend them only on essentials. They spend them on the essentials of life. It is pretty obvious that consumer spending is a very significant part of economic recovery. The economic recovery is obviously fragile. We have so many folks out of work, and those folks and the folks who are worried about losing their jobs put off spending on anything but the most basic needs. So obviously that slowdown in consumer spending also takes a toll on our economy. If we are going to make up for the decline in consumer spending, one obvious way, it seems to me, is to get this extra help to folks who are hurting so badly today in our country. So it strikes me that the decision to not get help to people immediately is simply illogical. It is bad from the standpoint of economic recovery. It is obviously going to compound the hurt Americans who are out of work are experiencing now, and colleagues on both sides of the aisle have said they don't want that to happen. So I am very hopeful that even before the end of the day, for the folks who are out of work, who are exhausting their unemployment and COBRA benefits--that there will be discussions here in the Senate to try to make sure folks are not denied the bare minimums that are needed to just get by and not denied even for just a few days. The fact is, these are folks who are making $250, $300 a week. None of them are living a life of leisure. No one can say these folks are somehow, as a result of their benefits, disinclined to find work. They are not part of ``Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous.'' They are the millions who today walk that economic tightrope, always feeling that another big bill is going to push them into the abyss where they cannot afford to pay the rent, cannot afford to pay the utility bill, cannot afford food. It is not right to let these folks suffer. I would submit that on a matter such as this, which is, in my view, a question of right and wrong, that is what extending unemployment benefits for a short period of time to prevent human suffering is all about, that we stay at this effort so folks who are hurting so badly in our country do not lose out, if even for only a few days. I will be at my post to continue to work and talk with colleagues of both political parties toward that end. We have to stay at it to ensure there is no break in the essential benefits the most vulnerable of our country so desperately needs.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, the U.S. Senate recently approved a 1- year extension of the expiring provisions of the Patriot Act with a voice vote. The extension was subsequently approved by the House and signed into law by President Obama. As I have argued for years that the Patriot Act is in need of serious reform, I would like to outline the changes I will keep working for as a member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Many of my colleagues who agree with me that reforms are needed think it would be difficult to have a constructive debate on domestic surveillance in the Senate right now. They think that next year will be a better time to have this debate, and that waiting will lead to a better opportunity to restore the best possible balance between fighting terrorism ferociously and protecting American rights and freedoms. Personally, I think that the reforms I am outlining today should have been made years ago. But based on the debate on the Patriot Act that took place in the Senate Judiciary Committee last fall, I agree that those of us who believe in reform need to spend more time making our case to our colleagues and the American people. So I will briefly address those reforms that I think are necessary, and the ways that I would like to see this debate move forward between now and next February, when these provisions will come up for renewal again. The three expiring provisions all involve domestic surveillance in one way or another. One regards the use of roving wiretaps for intelligence purposes, one regards the surveillance of so-called ``lone wolf'' terrorist suspects, and one involves government access to business records. I have cosponsored legislation that would create additional safeguards on the use of roving wiretaps, and I think that it is appropriate to debate whether the ``lone wolf'' statute should be reformed or repealed, particularly given the fact that it has never been used. But it is the business records provision, section 215 of the Patriot Act, which I believe is most in need of reform. Section 215 of the Patriot Act is referred to as the ``business records'' provision, but it actually covers any personal information that is held by any sort of institution or third party--including banks, hospitals, libraries, and retail stores of all types. And it doesn't just apply to documents; it applies to ``any tangible thing'', which means it covers things like blood or tissue samples as well. Prior to 9/11, if the FBI or another government agency was conducting an intelligence investigation and wanted to obtain an individual's personal records from the business or institution that was holding them, the government agency had to have evidence indicating that the person whose records they wanted was a terrorist or a spy. Section 215 of the Patriot Act lowered this standard to permit the government to collect any records deemed ``relevant to an investigation''. ``Relevant'' is an incredibly broad standard. In fact, it could potentially permit the government to collect the personal information of large numbers of law-abiding Americans who have no connection to terrorism whatsoever. As an alternative to ``relevance'', I and other senators have advocated for what I call the ``nexus to terrorism'' standard. Under this standard, the government could use the Patriot Act to obtain any records pertaining to a terrorist suspect, or the suspect's activities, or any individual that the suspect has been in contact with or directly linked to in any way. This is a much broader standard than the one that existed before 9/11, and it would give the FBI and other government agencies significant flexibility in terrorism investigations. But it is much tighter than the standard that is currently written into law as part of the Patriot Act, and it would greatly reduce potential intrusions on the privacy of law-abiding Americans. Switching to a ``nexus to terrorism'' standard is not a radical proposal. In 2005, the Senate passed a bill that would have replaced the ``relevance'' standard with one requiring a ``nexus to terrorism''. In fact, this bill was passed by unanimous consent. And President Obama cosponsored similar legislation in 2007. So this proposal has received significant bipartisan support in the past. And in my judgment, it would go a long, long way toward restoring the balance between security and freedom that is so important to Americans. I have cosponsored legislation that would make ``nexus to terrorism'' the standard for accessing individuals' business records for intelligence purposes. Over the next year, I will continue to argue for the merits of this standard. I will also continue to press for more transparency about how the Patriot Act has actually been interpreted and applied in practice. As I have said before, there is key information that is relevant to the debate on the Patriot Act that is currently classified. Over the past two and a half years, I have pressed the executive branch to declassify this information in a responsible way, so that members of Congress and the public can have an informed debate about what the law should actually be. I have raised this issue numerous times, in classified letters and in meetings with high-level Administration officials. Many of these classified letters were also signed by other senators, including Senator Feingold and Senator Durbin. In a partial response to our requests, the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence have prepared a classified paper that contains details about how some of the Patriot Act's authorities have actually been used, and this paper is now available to all members of Congress, who can read it in the Intelligence Committee's secure office spaces. Providing this classified paper to Congress is a good first step, and I would certainly encourage all of my colleagues to come down to the Intelligence Committee and read it, but by itself this step does not go nearly far enough. Ensuring that members of Congress have information about how the law has been interpreted and applied is obviously essential, but it is just as essential for the public to have this information as well. Most members of the public do not expect to have detailed information about how intelligence collection is actually conducted, but they do expect to understand the boundaries of what the law does and does not allow, so that they can ratify or reject the decisions that public officials make on their behalf. I am particularly concerned about this because I believe that there is a discrepancy between what most Americans believe is legal and what the government is actually doing under the Patriot Act. In my view, any discrepancy of this sort is intolerable and untenable, and can only be fixed by greater transparency and openness. This is why I think it is so important for the executive branch to declassify the information that I have asked them to take action on. I expect that convincing the executive branch to take decisive action on this issue will not be easy, and that it will not happen quickly. But I have been engaged on this issue for two and a half years already, so I think it should be clear by now that I do not intend to give up. As Congress prepares to resume debate on the Patriot Act next year, I will continue to press the administration to find a way to release this information in a manner that serves the public interest and does not harm national security. And I hope that my colleagues will join me in this effort.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Before he leaves the floor, let me echo the praise for our friend from New Jersey, who has prosecuted the case against cigarettes for so many years. We are thankful to him. What a strong advocate he is. I thank the chairman as well for all his efforts. I wish to highlight a couple provisions he and I worked on together that speak to the headlines we are seeing in this morning's newspaper; in particular, the provision he and I partnered on that allows States to innovate and take their own fresh approaches in terms of addressing health care challenges. We all read today about how roughly a dozen States are already challenging the important, recently-signed health care law on the grounds that the individual mandate is unconstitutional. He and I worked very closely together to ensure that States could have a waiver to, in effect, go out and set up their own approach. In fact, counsel to the Senate Finance Committee specifically said, in response to our questions during the markup of health reform, that if a State could meet the general framework of our legislation, it did not have to do it with an individual mandate. I thank the chairman for stepping up and empowering the States. I want the country to know that under the legislation Chairman Baucus worked on with me, every State does not have to litigate. They can innovate. They can go out and look at fresh approaches to address our health care challenges. That would include doing health reform without an individual mandate. I have followed the discussion on the floor over the last couple days about how somehow reform would Europeanize the health care system. On the contrary, what Chairman Baucus has done, with Section 1332 of the health reform bill, similar to what I sought to do in the legislation I drafted that had bipartisan support, is to send a message to all the States all across the country that we invite them to come up with the kind of fresh, creative ideas that are going to help us hold health care costs down. In fact, the chairman and I spent a lot of time trying to make sure States could tailor their own health insurance exchanges, which would be fresh marketplaces, so that, for example, an approach in Montana or Oregon that folks there thought made sense, could be entirely different than a strategy New York would try on its own. Not only is section 1332 a provision that allows for State innovation, but, as the chairman knows, there is also another approach that our colleague Senator Cantwell came up with that advances similar State innovation, allowing States to set up a basic health care plan. So my message to these States talking about litigating right now is, why would you say at this point you are going to go out and go to court and sue everybody in sight when, in fact, what the President signed yesterday gives the States the authority to come up with their own approach? Senate Finance Committee counsel is on record as saying that States could pursue their own approach without an individual mandate. I hope--given the amount of attention that is being paid this afternoon to the question of States filing these lawsuits, alleging the law is unconstitutional because of the individual mandate--I hope some of those States will take a look at section 1332 that, in my view, ought to be attractive to elected officials all across the political spectrum who share the view Chairman Baucus and I share; which is, we would like to empower the States. Another area where innovation is encouraged to occur is the Medicare Advantage provision in our legislation. We have had a lot of discussion on the floor about Medicare Advantage. Having been involved with this program for a number of years, and its predecessors during the days when I was codirector of the Gray Panthers, I wish to offer up to colleagues that not all Medicare Advantage is created equal. Two years ago, we heard testimony in the Senate Finance Committee about some Medicare Advantage products that, as far as I am concerned, are so shoddy and so devoid of consumer protection the people who sold them ought to be in jail. We have taken steps to add consumer protection to the Medicare Advantage Program. On the other hand, there are very good Medicare Advantage Programs in our part of the country that have been able to win recognition from the Federal Government as high quality plans. In fact, under this legislation, plans that have earned a high quality rating from the Federal Government on the basis of, for example, how they manage chronic conditions, the kinds of screenings they do of a preventive nature, and their responsiveness to member complaints, when they get a high rating from the Federal Government on the basis of such criteria and earn those extra stars, they will get bonus payments. This was an idea the Chairman worked closely with me on when the legislation was advanced by the Finance Committee. We will probably have further discussions on the floor about Medicare Advantage, but I only come to the floor today to say--for those who are interested in promoting quality; for those who believe that no matter how much you do to contain costs, you also have to beef up quality-- take a look at the work that was done with respect to Medicare Advantage. It acknowledges that not all Medicare Advantage is created equal. (Mr. MERKLEY assumed the Chair.)

Mr. WYDEN. The Presiding Officer in the Senate, who has just joined us, knows that our home State has the largest percentage of folks in Medicare Advantage than any other State in the United States: over 40 percent. They happen to be in good plans with those high ratings I mentioned from the Federal Government. So clearly, our States with high quality are going to be appreciative of this. But so will all the other programs across the land that have similar ratings, and we will have created an incentive for all of those other Medicare Advantage Programs in the years ahead to meet our standards. I come to the floor briefly this afternoon to point out these two provisions in the bill that promote quality and innovation. First, I hope States will use the provision that creates incentives for them to innovate. Our message ought to be innovate rather than litigate. I hope attorneys general will remember that in the days and weeks ahead. Second, I hope colleagues will look at the new incentives in this legislation to promote quality in the Medicare Advantage program and beyond because I believe those two provisions in this legislation--that encourage State innovation, that promote quality in the Medicare Program--ought to be widely supported by colleagues on both sides of the aisle in the days ahead. That is, in my view, the kind of approach that can bring the American people together and help us implement this law in a fashion that is in line with what Americans want: good quality, affordable care, and reform that works for them. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for this time and particularly for your help on those two provisions that I think ought to appeal to both Republicans and Democrats in the days ahead.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise in support of this legislation to modernize our Nation's aviation system and I am especially pleased that it includes Senate Amendment No. 3534 to protect the pristine beauty and quiet of Crater Lake National Park. This amendment offered by Senator Merkley and I would bring an end to the bureaucratic stalemate that exists between the Federal Aviation Administration and the National Park Service over implementation of the National Parks Air Tour Management Act of 2000. That act required the FAA and the Park Service to work together in regulating air tours over national parks. Unfortunately, that is not happening. After nearly a decade, these two agencies have yet to complete a single required air tour management plan for those parks with air tours. Meanwhile, parks where air tours applications are pending are in limbo over whether tours will operate and where. Efforts to provide adequate safeguards to protect the parks' resources have stalled, leaving places such as Oregon's Crater Lake National Park--the 6th oldest national park in the Nation--lingering in needless uncertainty. In short, the law is not working as it was intended and providing no benefit to anyone. When an air tour company applied last year for permission to fly tours over Crater Lake National Park, the public outcry in my state and elsewhere was swift and dramatic--and for good reason. Anyone familiar with Crater Lake knows that it is one of the crown jewels of the Nation's system of national parks. It is a place that my constituents care deeply about. It is visited by countless Oregonians and tourists alike every year who come to see its deep-blue lake, dramatic lava flows, towering trees and, perhaps most of all, to experience its quiet. While we cannot agree on what to do about air tours over every single national park, we can agree that if we are going to ban them anywhere it should be Crater Lake. Such a ban will guarantee future generations the same pristine solitude that exists today. Since Crater Lake represents one of the few places to escape the din of everyday life, I and many others have serious concerns over what the proposed helicopter over flights would do to that tranquility. Yet that concern isn't able to be considered by the FAA and the Park Service under the requirements found in the current National Park Air Tour Management Act of 2000. Parks such as Crater Lake must go through the costly and time-consuming process of attempting to craft an air tour management plan before being able to deny an application for air tours. As no such plans have been completed for any park in 10 years, there is little prospect of getting any certainty any time in the near future. This is uncertainty for air tour operators and for parks visitors alike. Will there be over flights or won't there? The way things work now, we'll never know and our treasured parks don't get the certain protection they need. My amendment would provide needed clarity regarding the responsibilities of the FAA and the National Park Service so that air tour management plans can finally be completed. It will speed implementation of the act by ensuring that air tour management plans are not required at Crater Lake, where it is clear that having them would be unacceptable to park resources or visitor experiences. I am pleased that Senator Rockefeller has worked with me to include this amendment in the managers' package. I thank my colleagues Senator Merkley who cosponsored this amendment and Senator Alexander who also lent his support. This amendment will help ensure that our parks' resources are protected.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join today with my colleague from Maine, Senator Snowe, to introduce the Promote Nanotechnology in Schools Act of 2010. As Co-Chair of the Congressional Nanotechnology Caucus, and former Chair of the Commerce Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Innovation, I have been involved in encouraging the development of nanotechnology for many years. Although I am gratified by the tremendous advancements that have already been achieved in nanotechnology, there are significant hurdles that could prevent the U.S. from realizing the full potential that nanotechnology holds for job creation, economic growth, and international competitiveness. During this challenging period when the economy is faltering and the government is working to help create jobs, nanotechnology represents an opportunity to provide long-term, well-paid employment for millions of Americans. In fact, the National Nanotechnology Initiative--the Federal Government organization that coordinates nanotechnology research across all Federal agencies--estimates that the global nanotechnology workforce will require 2 million trained workers by 2015. It is estimated that only 20,000 workers are currently employed in this field. To ensure that many of the needed jobs will be created here in the U.S., it is necessary to provide our students with the tools that will provide the skills and knowledge that nanotechnology companies need. This is exactly what the Promote Nanotechnology in Schools Act will do. This act directs the National Science Foundation to establish a grant program that would provide schools, community colleges, 2- and 4-year colleges and universities and other educational institutions with up to $400,000 to purchase nanotechnology education equipment and materials. Schools participating in the program would be required to provide matching funds of at least 1/4 of the amount of the grant. In my home State, it has been very rewarding to see the technological advances and entrepreneurial success achieved by the Oregon Nanoscience and Microtechnologies Institute, ONAMI. Oregon's first signature research center, ONAMI is a public-private partnership between the State's top research universities, major corporations, and small business entrepreneurs. Working with top scientists and graduate students, and leveraging the nanotechnology equipment available at Oregon's public universities, ONAMI has provided gap funding to 18 start-up businesses, which have created at least 60 new jobs. While Oregon has been a leader in this arena, it is certainly not alone. Nanotechnology job creation efforts are accelerating in hubs for technology development throughout the country. As Co-Chair of the Congressional Nanotechnology Caucus, I have had the opportunity to talk with innovators and entrepreneurs from nanotechnology companies working in the areas as diverse as energy management, health technology, environmental sciences, advanced computing, textile and material sciences, and many others. What I have heard in common across all of these fields is the need for qualified workers. If high school and college students are not exposed to nanotechnology, this emerging field will not be able to reach its full potential. Without a qualified workforce that will allow nanotech companies in this country to scale-up, foreign competitors will be able to fill the vacuum in the global marketplace. With the Promote Nanotechnology in Schools Act, this country will put the resources into place that will prepare our students to meet the needs of the emerging nanotech economy. That is why I want to thank Senator Snowe for joining me in introducing this timely, and much-needed legislation. I also want to acknowledge the support and efforts of the nanotech companies that worked with me and other Members of Congress to help build support for this bill. Finally, I call upon my colleagues to move quickly not only to pass this legislation but also the National Nanotechnology Initiative Amendments Act reauthorization. These important bills will help advance nanotechnology in this country, and protect the U.S.'s position at the forefront of innovation and economic opportunity. I urge all my colleagues to support innovation and promote entrepreneurial competition by cosponsoring this legislation.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join today with my colleague from Maine, Senator Snowe, to introduce the Promote Nanotechnology in Schools Act of 2010. As Co-Chair of the Congressional Nanotechnology Caucus, and former Chair of the Commerce Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Innovation, I have been involved in encouraging the development of nanotechnology for many years. Although I am gratified by the tremendous advancements that have already been achieved in nanotechnology, there are significant hurdles that could prevent the U.S. from realizing the full potential that nanotechnology holds for job creation, economic growth, and international competitiveness. During this challenging period when the economy is faltering and the government is working to help create jobs, nanotechnology represents an opportunity to provide long-term, well-paid employment for millions of Americans. In fact, the National Nanotechnology Initiative--the Federal Government organization that coordinates nanotechnology research across all Federal agencies--estimates that the global nanotechnology workforce will require 2 million trained workers by 2015. It is estimated that only 20,000 workers are currently employed in this field. To ensure that many of the needed jobs will be created here in the U.S., it is necessary to provide our students with the tools that will provide the skills and knowledge that nanotechnology companies need. This is exactly what the Promote Nanotechnology in Schools Act will do. This act directs the National Science Foundation to establish a grant program that would provide schools, community colleges, 2- and 4-year colleges and universities and other educational institutions with up to $400,000 to purchase nanotechnology education equipment and materials. Schools participating in the program would be required to provide matching funds of at least 1/4 of the amount of the grant. In my home State, it has been very rewarding to see the technological advances and entrepreneurial success achieved by the Oregon Nanoscience and Microtechnologies Institute, ONAMI. Oregon's first signature research center, ONAMI is a public-private partnership between the State's top research universities, major corporations, and small business entrepreneurs. Working with top scientists and graduate students, and leveraging the nanotechnology equipment available at Oregon's public universities, ONAMI has provided gap funding to 18 start-up businesses, which have created at least 60 new jobs. While Oregon has been a leader in this arena, it is certainly not alone. Nanotechnology job creation efforts are accelerating in hubs for technology development throughout the country. As Co-Chair of the Congressional Nanotechnology Caucus, I have had the opportunity to talk with innovators and entrepreneurs from nanotechnology companies working in the areas as diverse as energy management, health technology, environmental sciences, advanced computing, textile and material sciences, and many others. What I have heard in common across all of these fields is the need for qualified workers. If high school and college students are not exposed to nanotechnology, this emerging field will not be able to reach its full potential. Without a qualified workforce that will allow nanotech companies in this country to scale-up, foreign competitors will be able to fill the vacuum in the global marketplace. With the Promote Nanotechnology in Schools Act, this country will put the resources into place that will prepare our students to meet the needs of the emerging nanotech economy. That is why I want to thank Senator Snowe for joining me in introducing this timely, and much-needed legislation. I also want to acknowledge the support and efforts of the nanotech companies that worked with me and other Members of Congress to help build support for this bill. Finally, I call upon my colleagues to move quickly not only to pass this legislation but also the National Nanotechnology Initiative Amendments Act reauthorization. These important bills will help advance nanotechnology in this country, and protect the U.S.'s position at the forefront of innovation and economic opportunity. I urge all my colleagues to support innovation and promote entrepreneurial competition by cosponsoring this legislation.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, we are going to have the leadership discuss the process for moving forward, but I wish to take a minute and talk about one of the important bipartisan provisions in the jobs bill. I think colleagues know it is never hard to get me to focus on the health reform issue, and we are certainly going to be doing a lot of that in the days ahead, but our constituents want us to focus on jobs as well and particularly a jobs effort that is going to work. We have that in the Build America Bonds program. I say to colleagues, the Build America Bonds program has far exceeded even the optimistic projections some of us had for this program. I have been involved in the development of this program now for 6 years. Senator Thune, on the other side of the aisle, has worked very closely with me. When we started our work on the Build America Bonds program, our hope was that perhaps $4 billion or $5 billion worth of these Build America Bonds would be let. What we have seen is that now close to $80 billion worth of these bonds have been issued. They are literally selling like hotcakes. They have revolutionized municipal finance, and some have projected that perhaps this year $150 billion worth of these Build America Bonds will be sold. So Build America Bonds work, and they put people in the private sector to work as well. In my home State of Oregon, it has been proven, time and time again, that private investment follows well-targeted public investment. That is what we are seeing with this bipartisan program, and that is why colleagues on both sides of the aisle have proposed expanding it. I note my good friend, Senator Thune, on the other side of the aisle, is here. He and I have worked hand in hand on this effort because we wanted to have something that would create jobs in our country that was nonpartisan. The reason Senator Thune and I have worked on this effort in a bipartisan way is we wanted to have something that is common sense, we wanted to have a jobs creation effort that responded to basic needs of our country, and we wanted to see it part of an effort where the private sector takes the lead. I am particularly appreciative the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee is here, Chairman Baucus. I wish to express my appreciation to him and his staff for their help in this effort. We saw in the Senate Finance Committee--Chairman Baucus is here, he remembers our discussions--our projections for Build America Bonds were pretty modest. The reality blew past those projections almost overnight. The projections for Build America Bonds were a few billion dollars, and we blew past those projections like a bullet train. Build America Bonds are getting desperately needed funding flowing into local communities, they are creating jobs, and they are helping to strengthen America's infrastructure. Almost $80 billion has been generated. This is in addition to the $80 billion of direct Federal infrastructure spending that has been included in the Recovery Act. I note that in the HIRE bill there is going to be an effort once again to ensure there is direct support for infrastructure, and we also have this very promising opportunity with the private sector that we have been able to secure with Build America Bonds. When a project is funded with Build America Bonds, the Federal Government pays a portion of the finance costs. It equals a very small percentage, perhaps a single-digit percentage of the total project cost. The city or State pays almost the entire cost of the project over time. A project that is funded with direct spending will often have the Federal Government pay 50 percent or 75 percent of the project costs. Some communities need that kind of help to get needed projects off the ground. But when some argued that projects should only be funded with direct spending, I thought it was important to look for other opportunities. That is why Build America Bonds came into existence. It is not possible, given the enormous needs for infrastructure improvements, for roads and bridges and transportation systems, to rely just on direct spending or rely just on bonds. What we ought to do is what we have done here in the Senate on a bipartisan basis; that is, put more options in the tool box for funding infrastructure. Of course, direct spending will be important. What we have seen is Build America Bonds take off as an additional tool. In my home State, in the Dayton School District, they are using Build America Bonds to employ up to 150 people building and remodeling classrooms. By using Build America Bonds, this small school district in my home State saved an estimated $1.2 million in interest costs. Up in Washington State, in Grand Coulee, the Coulee Medical Center was able to finance a new hospital building with Build America Bonds, saving more than $7 million in finance costs. They were able to start construction immediately. We had discussion on the floor earlier--are these government jobs? What that project did was put people in the private sector to work--construction workers, plumbers, electricians, tradesmen. Once the building, of course, is completed at the end of the year, doctors and nurses, clerks and support staff get to work in the new hospital. Recently, a joint Congressional Budget Office-Joint Tax Committee report highlighted other benefits flowing from Build America Bonds. As my friend Senator Thune, who is in the Chamber, knows about Build America Bonds, this report shows that tax-credit bonds, such as Build America Bonds, can be more effective than tax-exempt bonds. The report also concluded that because the bonds are more attractive to investors, they are more efficient at raising capital. Once again, Democrats and Republicans have been able to come together in the Senate to advance a fresh approach that saves municipalities time and money and effort that can otherwise be devoted to other priorities. Aside from the fact that the funds are raised efficiently, they are answering a cry we hear again and again; that is, get the job done quickly. People are frustrated that sometimes it takes eons for government to work out the particular project, particularly in the transportation area. Bond funds need to be spent within 2 years of the date the bond is issued. What that means is money is not just flowing into projects, it is being spent in the short term. People get back to work quickly. You get more bang for your dollar, and that obviously is what Americans are asking for, and Build America Bonds deliver. Back in the days before these bonds were issued, the market for the traditional, normal municipal bond was just about frozen. It was hard to sell them. Now Build America Bonds have changed that. The private sector is strongly supporting this program. Groups such as the Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers and businesses across the country are saying they need a fresh approach to build infrastructure. Particularly with Build America Bonds, we are now seeing businesses say this is an approach that gives them a long-term boost to what they know they can count on. They can plan new avenues for their businesses when they know there is going to be infrastructure there to support it. It is not, however, just businesses that are buying Build America Bonds. Nonprofits such as pension funds are finding these bonds are an attractive investment. Nonprofits cannot benefit from the tax credits, but bond issuers can pass on the value of the tax credits in the form of a higher interest rate for Build America Bonds than other types of bonds. By contrast, traditional tax-exempt municipal bonds have not been a good investment for pension funds and other institutional investors that do not pay taxes. What Build America Bonds have been able to do is provide a way for nonprofits to invest in American infrastructure that traditional tax-exempt bonds don't provide. We are not surprised that Build America Bonds are reinventing the municipal bond market. We were told by people in the private sector, in the States, in the finance community, all across the country, that they thought this was a chance to, in effect, unfreeze the municipal bond market that had been frozen in Illinois, in Oregon, in South Dakota, and across the country. In some cases, these bonds are going to make the difference between whether the infrastructure projects come to fruition. In other cases, they are going to lower the cost of the projects and allow the community to reinvest the savings in other projects. By any scenario, the Build America Bonds program helps local government, local businesses, and those who rely on them for jobs and dependable infrastructure. In my view, that is exactly what the American people are looking for from their elected officials--something that works, something that is common sense, something that is bipartisan, something with a proven track record. That is, in fact, the Build America Bonds program. Let me close with one last point. There have been discussions--and we have been in consultation with Chairman Baucus and the Senate Finance Committee staff on this--about financial institutions and whether the fees they are charging are appropriate for the issuance of Build America Bonds. First of all, it has been the position of Chairman Baucus, myself, and others that anybody who tries to take advantage of State and municipal issuers needs to understand that the Senate Finance Committee is going to have a zero tolerance policy--zero tolerance policy--for ripping off the taxpayers. This program is designed to create jobs and make infrastructure funding more efficient and certainly not create any opportunities for somebody to try to skate around the rules and to take advantage of taxpayers. In the Senate Finance Committee--and I am very appreciative of Chairman Baucus taking this approach. The Congress included a 2-percent limit on the amount of fees issuers of Build America Bonds can charge. In practice, the typical fee, in fact, has been far less than the statutory maximum fee that is allowed. As the market for Build America Bonds has grown--and I pointed out that it has mushroomed far beyond projections--the fees have kept coming down. They have come down close to the levels currently charged for tax-exempt bonds. With Build America Bonds having become well established--in fact, they now represent 20 percent of the municipal bond market--in our view, there simply is no longer a justification for charging a higher fee. As the expiration of the Build America Bonds program approaches at the end of the year--and I am very glad the administration has proposed making the program permanent--I intend to keep monitoring the fees charged for issuing the bonds. If some can present the case that it is appropriate to further reduce the statutory cap on fees, I am certainly open to listening to it. I want to make sure every single dime of taxpayer money goes to these bondholders. I am open to listening to any suggestions and any ideas to make a program that works, a program that Senator Thune and I have worked on together for many months that is working--we are certainly open to ideas for improving on it. I see my friend from Florida is anxious to speak. I appreciate his desire to talk tonight. Let's keep focusing--whether it is health care, whether it is transportation, whether it is tax reform--on ideas that bring the Senate together. I wanted to take a few minutes to talk about Build America Bonds specifically tonight. Again, the chairman of the Finance Committee is in the Chamber. I am very appreciative of his support and Senator Grassley's support. As the majority leader, Senator Reid, noted earlier tonight, we have to zero in on jobs. There is no economic multiplier out there like jobs. If you put people to work, as I outlined--construction workers, electricians, plumbers--restaurants make the sandwiches to feed all the men and women who are doing the work. Let's keep coming back to approaches that bring both sides together. I have tried to do that in health care, in tax reform, and certainly in transportation, where Senator Thune and I have been able to team up on something that works and is being used around the country. Let's remember that is what is needed right now when our folks are hurting. When they are looking for approaches that are common sense, that are nonpartisan, we can give them one specifically with the Build America Bonds program. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, my colleague and friend, Senator Merkley, has spoken very eloquently about Ben Westlund, and I wanted to echo those thoughts and reflect on Ben's special and unique style and warmth. All of us who have been around government and politics know the challenge of the early-morning meeting. Folks are a little bit sleep- deprived, they are looking for coffee, and maybe they are just trying to keep their eyes open at 7:30 or 8 a.m. Senator Merkley and I want to tell you a little bit about how Ben Westlund handled those meetings. Ben Westlund was able to master, like everything else, the challenge of the early-morning meeting in government. I am sure Senator Merkley remembers that even at that early hour, Ben Westlund would bound to the podium--would not walk, he would bound to the podium--and at the top of his lungs, Ben Westlund would shout: Good morning, Oregon. Good morning, folks. How are you doing? And within a matter of seconds, as Senator Merkley remembers, the entire room would be smiling and everybody would feel like attacking the challenge of the day. That was Ben Westlund. As Senator Merkley noted, he was always on the offensive against injustice, always speaking out, for example, on health care. Ben Westlund lived his life in full view. He shared his battle with cancer with his colleagues in the State legislature because he wanted everybody to know what it was like to try to wrestle with an illness. He always made the point that he had all of these friends. One of our colleagues, Alan Bates, for example, was there for Ben, and Ben would always say: What would it have been like without Alan Bates? I have so many advantages other people did not have. And that was Ben, always sticking up for others. He and I were trading calls before he passed--I think Senator Merkley will identify with this--because I think Ben was prepared to give me heck, and maybe a little stronger, on a couple of the provisions in the tax legislation that I just introduced with Senator Gregg. Ben was our treasurer. He had mastered the Tax Code in and out. I was trying to reach him because I knew that, invariably, Ben Westlund would be right, he would give us good input, and his thoughts would come directly from the people of Oregon. That was Ben Westlund. Both of Oregon's U.S. Senators are going to deeply miss this wonderful man, his good counsel, and his companionship. We wanted to take a couple of minutes this morning to note that Oregon has lost a special person, a special person who did so much for our State and did a lot for our country as well. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to right a bureaucratic wrong that has prevented capable and qualified veterans from serving their home States as work-study students in Congressional offices. For years, veterans have served in the office of their representative or senator as a vital part of an office's constituent service efforts. These student veterans gain employment experience while providing valuable expertise to our offices. Student veterans work together with our staffs to assist other veterans from their home State wade through the often confusing and lengthy process of receiving benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs. Congressional offices benefit by providing better services to their constituents without having to hire a disproportionate number of people to assist with veterans affairs. Veteran work-study students also benefit the VA by shouldering up-front some of the administrative burdens of claims processing. Congressional offices have served as qualified work sites for VA work-study students for over 25 years. Student veterans have worked in congressional offices during my time in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. In recent months, however, Oregon congressional offices were notified that they would no longer be eligible sites for VA work-study programs. I am deeply troubled that the proud tradition of student veterans serving fellow veterans in Oregon congressional offices is in jeopardy. At a time when the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have increased the number of veterans seeking our help with VA benefits and services, the instability of the program is particularly unfortunate. Moreover, my concerns are heightened due to the reduction in work-study positions available to Oregon veterans during an economic recession that has sent unemployment rates over 12 percent in some areas. I share the VA's hope to provide high quality, prompt, and seamless service to veterans and their dependents, through the VA work-study program. That is why I am introducing legislation today to return these talented student veterans to Congressional offices. These student veterans provide an invaluable resource to our staffs. I hope that we are able to pass this legislation quickly to provide valuable employment opportunities for our Nation's veterans. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to right a bureaucratic wrong that has prevented capable and qualified veterans from serving their home States as work-study students in Congressional offices. For years, veterans have served in the office of their representative or senator as a vital part of an office's constituent service efforts. These student veterans gain employment experience while providing valuable expertise to our offices. Student veterans work together with our staffs to assist other veterans from their home State wade through the often confusing and lengthy process of receiving benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs. Congressional offices benefit by providing better services to their constituents without having to hire a disproportionate number of people to assist with veterans affairs. Veteran work-study students also benefit the VA by shouldering up-front some of the administrative burdens of claims processing. Congressional offices have served as qualified work sites for VA work-study students for over 25 years. Student veterans have worked in congressional offices during my time in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. In recent months, however, Oregon congressional offices were notified that they would no longer be eligible sites for VA work-study programs. I am deeply troubled that the proud tradition of student veterans serving fellow veterans in Oregon congressional offices is in jeopardy. At a time when the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have increased the number of veterans seeking our help with VA benefits and services, the instability of the program is particularly unfortunate. Moreover, my concerns are heightened due to the reduction in work-study positions available to Oregon veterans during an economic recession that has sent unemployment rates over 12 percent in some areas. I share the VA's hope to provide high quality, prompt, and seamless service to veterans and their dependents, through the VA work-study program. That is why I am introducing legislation today to return these talented student veterans to Congressional offices. These student veterans provide an invaluable resource to our staffs. I hope that we are able to pass this legislation quickly to provide valuable employment opportunities for our Nation's veterans. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, along with Senators Cantwell, Mikulski, Cardin, Dodd, and Merkley, I am reintroducing legislation that will repeal the authority granted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, FERC, in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to site Liquified Natural Gas, LNG, terminals. Prior to enactment of these changes, States, such as Oregon, had authority to site these large energy facilities--a right that was preempted by the 2005 act. At the time, 45 Senators went on record saying that cutting State siting agencies out of the LNG siting process was a bad idea. As citizens and their public officials in my State and those of my colleagues can attest, putting FERC in the driver's seat for LNG siting has been a colossal mistake. Rather than address the critical environmental and economic questions of whether these large, potentially dangerous natural gas storage facilities are even needed or whether energy supplies could be provided with less environmental impact and risk, FERC has taken the attitude that it's not its job to make such decisions. The result is the worst of all possible public policy worlds where FERC refuses to address the tough questions and the law limits the ability of our States to step where FERC fails. Right now, in Oregon, we have three separate LNG projects. Two of those have been approved by FERC over the objections of citizens and State officials and one is still pending. Together, they would have a combined capacity of 3.3 billion cubic feet, BCF, of gas per day. Yet, the States of Oregon and Washington, together, only use 1.33 BCF per day. Natural gas prices in North America have significantly declined and supplies have increased since these projects were proposed. Yet, FERC categorically refuses to address the basic question of whether the three proposed facilities are even needed to serve our market. FERC also refuses to consider whether any of the competing interstate pipeline proposals to bring natural gas to Oregon from the Rocky Mountains would be a better option. In fact, FERC asserts that it is not its job to determine which, if any, of these proposals best serves our market. While the new chairman of FERC--Jon Wellinghoff--has been willing to vote against LNG siting proposals, the truth is that FERC continues to plow ahead with siting decisions that make no economic sense and which endanger forest lands, farms, vineyards, and residential neighborhoods. Given FERC's record, my colleagues and I believe that it is essential that Congress restore the local and State role in these critical decisions about where, and even whether, LNG facilities and the pipelines that connect them are to be built. The legislative language is identical to the bill I introduced in the last Congress--S. 2822--and which garnered the support of a number of my colleagues including then-Senator Barack Obama. That bill was needed then, and it is needed now. I am going to be calling on the President for his help in fixing this serious mistake. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I would like to take a moment to praise the courage and commitment of a small community in Oregon. Grant County is home to just 7,500 people. It is located in rural eastern Oregon. The county is larger than some States. With majestic mountains, rivers, and valleys, its beauty is unprecedented. Those who live there are proud of their home. They work hard and they watch out for each other. Last month, they proved it in a way that should make everyone proud to be an American. A few weeks ago, a man came to town calling himself the national director of the Aryan Nations, one of the most infamous hate groups in America. He declared that he was looking for a place for a national headquarters and that Grant County would be perfect. Amazingly, he said the values of his organization and the values of Grant County were the same. He couldn't have been more wrong. Since the local newspaper, the Blue Mountain Eagle, reported on his visit, Grant County has risen as one to show this man that there is no way that their home is going to be the headquarters for hate. To express their outrage, the residents of Grant County stood on street corners in the city of John Day waving flags and holding signs making it clear that the Aryan Nations was not welcome. The people of Grant County stood together in supporting diversity and tolerance in their community. All over the county, green ribbons symbolizing their support for equality streamed from car antennas, hung from fences, and pinned proudly to their clothes. Signs are in businesses and homes. Cars are emblazoned with messages of support for their community and opposition to hatred. More than 1,000 people jammed into two public meetings held on February 26. They were there to learn how to make sure the Aryan Nations would not succeed. There were so many that the meeting room couldn't hold them all. You know there is something special going on when one out of every six residents of a small rural county comes, to learn how to protect their community from a group who would destroy it. Since then, the Grant County Human Rights Coalition has been formed. It is a remarkable group of people, all working to make their home a better place. The people of Grant County have shown us all what a community looks like. As an Oregonian and as their U.S. Senator, I could not be more proud of them.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, along with Senators Cantwell, Mikulski, Cardin, Dodd, and Merkley, I am reintroducing legislation that will repeal the authority granted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, FERC, in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to site Liquified Natural Gas, LNG, terminals. Prior to enactment of these changes, States, such as Oregon, had authority to site these large energy facilities--a right that was preempted by the 2005 act. At the time, 45 Senators went on record saying that cutting State siting agencies out of the LNG siting process was a bad idea. As citizens and their public officials in my State and those of my colleagues can attest, putting FERC in the driver's seat for LNG siting has been a colossal mistake. Rather than address the critical environmental and economic questions of whether these large, potentially dangerous natural gas storage facilities are even needed or whether energy supplies could be provided with less environmental impact and risk, FERC has taken the attitude that it's not its job to make such decisions. The result is the worst of all possible public policy worlds where FERC refuses to address the tough questions and the law limits the ability of our States to step where FERC fails. Right now, in Oregon, we have three separate LNG projects. Two of those have been approved by FERC over the objections of citizens and State officials and one is still pending. Together, they would have a combined capacity of 3.3 billion cubic feet, BCF, of gas per day. Yet, the States of Oregon and Washington, together, only use 1.33 BCF per day. Natural gas prices in North America have significantly declined and supplies have increased since these projects were proposed. Yet, FERC categorically refuses to address the basic question of whether the three proposed facilities are even needed to serve our market. FERC also refuses to consider whether any of the competing interstate pipeline proposals to bring natural gas to Oregon from the Rocky Mountains would be a better option. In fact, FERC asserts that it is not its job to determine which, if any, of these proposals best serves our market. While the new chairman of FERC--Jon Wellinghoff--has been willing to vote against LNG siting proposals, the truth is that FERC continues to plow ahead with siting decisions that make no economic sense and which endanger forest lands, farms, vineyards, and residential neighborhoods. Given FERC's record, my colleagues and I believe that it is essential that Congress restore the local and State role in these critical decisions about where, and even whether, LNG facilities and the pipelines that connect them are to be built. The legislative language is identical to the bill I introduced in the last Congress--S. 2822--and which garnered the support of a number of my colleagues including then-Senator Barack Obama. That bill was needed then, and it is needed now. I am going to be calling on the President for his help in fixing this serious mistake. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, consistent with Senate standing orders and my policy of publishing in the Congressional Record a statement whenever I place a hold on legislation, I am announcing my intention to object to any unanimous consent request to proceed to legislation extending any expiring laws that does not include extension of unemployment benefits and COBRA health insurance benefits. Last night, there was an attempt to extend some laws that expire at the end of the month without extending the enhanced unemployment insurance and COBRA health insurance benefits that were enacted as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. I objected to that attempt. I did so because Oregon currently has one of the highest unemployment rates in the Nation with an unemployment rate of 11 percent. Extension of unemployment benefits is critical for many unemployed Oregonians who are in jeopardy of running out of benefits if they are not extended before the end of this month. What's worse, many jobless Oregonians and unemployed workers in other States lose their health benefits when they lose their jobs, leaving them without either income or health care. In order to ensure unemployed workers in Oregon and other States will not be left without these critical, lifeline benefits, I am announcing my objection to any unanimous consent to extend other expiring laws, unless extension of unemployment benefits and COBRA benefits are included as part of the legislation. I have no objection to the Senate proceeding to H.R. 4213 to provide for certain extenders because extension of unemployment and COBRA benefits are included as part of that legislation.