Ron Wyden

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, let me first say I thought the statement from the distinguished Senator from Georgia was spot on, and I particularly appreciated his point that when we confirm Leon Panetta to head Defense, no one can possibly predict what kind of challenges he will face there. But this is the kind of person who, because of ability and background, is up to any kind of challenges that are thrown to him. So I want to associate myself with my colleague from Georgia. Mr. President, I would suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, tomorrow, the Senate will vote on the confirmation of Michael Simon to serve as U.S. District Court Judge for the District of Oregon. Michael Simon is a good and decent man. In my home State where we have a judicial emergency by the standards of Chief Justice Roberts, it is vitally important that Michael Simon be confirmed. To begin, I wish to thank Chairman Leahy; ranking minority member Grassley; the majority leader, Senator Reid, and minority leader McConnell for bringing this nomination to the floor today. Senator Merkley and I have been proud to put forward Mr. Simon's name for consideration by the President. We were enthused by his subsequent nomination, and we are now hopeful he will soon be able to continue his service to the people of Oregon in this new capacity. Michael Simon is both a distinguished lawyer and a legal scholar with a diverse and impressive legal career. That career includes work as a public servant, as a litigator, a pro tempore judge, and as a professor. Michael Simon now is a partner at the firm of Perkins Coie in Portland, and he has worked there since 1986. After graduating summa cum laude from UCLA, Mr. Simon attended Harvard Law School where he again graduated with honors cum laude. He began his legal career in the Department of Justice antitrust division where he served as a trial attorney for 5 years. During his time working in Washington, DC, Mr. Simon also volunteered for and served as special U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. It was through his work at the antitrust division that Mr. Simon made one of his most notable contributions, and that was a contribution to strengthening consumer protection law. The distinguished President pro tempore of the Senate knows from his days in Connecticut as attorney general how important it is that there be public advocates for consumer rights because so often this is a field that gets short shrift. People say they are for the rights of consumers, but these cases can be hard and time consuming to bring. That is what Michael Simon did and did so well. Working on behalf of the Department of Justice on the case of United States v. American Airlines, Mr. Simon successfully argued for extending the reach of the Sherman Act to include monopolization and attempted monopolization. In my view, this extension is one that benefits consumers each and every day across this country. Frankly, to have someone on the bench who has this kind of expertise in fighting monopolies and protecting the rights of consumers is a very special qualification that I would simply commend to the Senate as we consider the nomination of Michael Simon. Throughout his work both in the public sector and in private practice, Mr. Simon has been an active member of our community. In fact, I have had many conversations with him in his capacity as the immediate past president of Congregation Beth Israel in my hometown where he constantly is the leader of the congregation, reaching out to conscript volunteers for a host of projects, particularly those that involve children. He has engaged in extensive pro bono work. He has volunteered for many local nonprofit organizations. I would call him the official champion of voluntarism, because when we look at some of the causes he has volunteered for--he has been a past board member of the Waverly Children's Home; he has been past president and current board member of the Classroom Law Project--we see that he consistently comes back to recognizing the importance of the well-being and security of children in our community. That, too, is a special area of expertise and advocacy that he will bring to the bench, confirmed by the Senate, and another area that I wish to commend Mr. Simon to the Senate for as we look at his candidacy this week. This seat has been vacant for nearly 2 years. As the distinguished President pro tempore of the Senate knows, there is a process by which one actually determines a judicial emergency. It has essentially been defined by Chief Justice Roberts, and we clearly have such an emergency in my home State of Oregon. So it is very welcome news for Oregonians that we have this opportunity to have a full bench, to have all justices on deck, and it is my view that Mr. Simon is an outstanding nominee. I have absolutely no reservations that he will be a superior judge. I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in supporting an exceptional individual--a person who is fair and thoughtful and who brings years and years of expertise and a host of very important legal assignments. I am especially grateful that he is a resident of my hometown where he has distinguished himself with extraordinary volunteering for a whole host of causes that are important, especially the future of our children. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I see the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee here, so let me yield the floor at this time.

Mr. WYDEN

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

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing a bill to reform the Capital Construction Fund to address major changes in the Nation's fisheries and to allow the Nation's fishers to have access to needed funds to prevent overfishing and to help create jobs. The Capital Construction Fund, CCF, program was originally developed at a time when American fishers were having a hard time competing with highly efficient foreign fishing vessels, modern boats that often harvested U.S. fishery resources within sight of our own shores. The initial idea behind the CCF Program was to enable U.S. fishers to accumulate the funds necessary to develop a modern fishing fleet by allowing them to deposit a portion of their fishing-related earnings into a CCF savings account on a tax-deferred basis. Under the CCF program, monies subsequently withdrawn from the CCF accounts would remain tax free as long as they were invested in new or rebuilt fishing vessels. At the same time, any unauthorized withdrawals from CCF accounts were subject to severe interest and other penalties. The program was a success; the CCF program helped the U.S. industry build a modern state-of-the-art fishing fleet. Unfortunately, that fleet has now become overcapitalized, a problem that has been exacerbated as managers have become more and more concerned about potential overfishing and have begun to reduce the amount of fish that they allow fishers to catch each year. As a result, the U.S. commercial fishing fleet now has more harvesting capacity than the U.S. fishery resource can sustainably support. The problem now is that the monies that remain on deposit in CCF accounts represent a potential for further overcapitalization at a time when less capitalization is needed. Yet the CCF regulations currently penalize withdrawals made for anything other than a bigger or better boat. The issue now is what to do about the money that remains ``stranded'' in existing CCF accounts. Ironically, just as the current generation of fishers is getting ready to retire, the program puts heavy penalties on them if they take money out of their CCF accounts without using it for anything other than to further capitalize an already overcapitalized fleet. The resulting situation is problematic for the fishers, the industry and the resource. That's why I am reintroducing legislation today along with my colleague Senator Murkowski--to address the problem of stranded capital still on deposit in various CCF accounts and to relieve the pressure to increase further capitalization of the fishing fleet. My legislation will enable CCF fundholders to make a one-time withdrawal from their CCF accounts without requiring them to reinvest it in the fishing industry. Instead, they will be required to pay the taxes due on the monies withdrawn, but without having to pay interest or other penalties on such withdrawals. Those funds would be freed up for other purposes, including starting a new business and finding other ways to support and create jobs. An income-averaging formula would be applied to the withdrawals so as to avoid an excessive tax rate on the one-time withdrawal. The fishers taking advantage of such an opportunity to take money out of their CCF accounts penalty free would then be required to close their CCF accounts and would be prohibited from further participation in the program. This is a win-win-win situation. The fisher gets to take the money out of his CCF without having to pay penalties and interest, but still pays the taxes when due; the government gets taxes on the withdrawals; and the resource and the fishers who remain in the fishery avoid further capitalization of an already overcapitalized industry. I look forward to working with Senator Murkowski, the fishing community, and the bill's other supporters to advance this legislation to the President's desk.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing a bill to reform the Capital Construction Fund to address major changes in the Nation's fisheries and to allow the Nation's fishers to have access to needed funds to prevent overfishing and to help create jobs. The Capital Construction Fund, CCF, program was originally developed at a time when American fishers were having a hard time competing with highly efficient foreign fishing vessels, modern boats that often harvested U.S. fishery resources within sight of our own shores. The initial idea behind the CCF Program was to enable U.S. fishers to accumulate the funds necessary to develop a modern fishing fleet by allowing them to deposit a portion of their fishing-related earnings into a CCF savings account on a tax-deferred basis. Under the CCF program, monies subsequently withdrawn from the CCF accounts would remain tax free as long as they were invested in new or rebuilt fishing vessels. At the same time, any unauthorized withdrawals from CCF accounts were subject to severe interest and other penalties. The program was a success; the CCF program helped the U.S. industry build a modern state-of-the-art fishing fleet. Unfortunately, that fleet has now become overcapitalized, a problem that has been exacerbated as managers have become more and more concerned about potential overfishing and have begun to reduce the amount of fish that they allow fishers to catch each year. As a result, the U.S. commercial fishing fleet now has more harvesting capacity than the U.S. fishery resource can sustainably support. The problem now is that the monies that remain on deposit in CCF accounts represent a potential for further overcapitalization at a time when less capitalization is needed. Yet the CCF regulations currently penalize withdrawals made for anything other than a bigger or better boat. The issue now is what to do about the money that remains ``stranded'' in existing CCF accounts. Ironically, just as the current generation of fishers is getting ready to retire, the program puts heavy penalties on them if they take money out of their CCF accounts without using it for anything other than to further capitalize an already overcapitalized fleet. The resulting situation is problematic for the fishers, the industry and the resource. That's why I am reintroducing legislation today along with my colleague Senator Murkowski--to address the problem of stranded capital still on deposit in various CCF accounts and to relieve the pressure to increase further capitalization of the fishing fleet. My legislation will enable CCF fundholders to make a one-time withdrawal from their CCF accounts without requiring them to reinvest it in the fishing industry. Instead, they will be required to pay the taxes due on the monies withdrawn, but without having to pay interest or other penalties on such withdrawals. Those funds would be freed up for other purposes, including starting a new business and finding other ways to support and create jobs. An income-averaging formula would be applied to the withdrawals so as to avoid an excessive tax rate on the one-time withdrawal. The fishers taking advantage of such an opportunity to take money out of their CCF accounts penalty free would then be required to close their CCF accounts and would be prohibited from further participation in the program. This is a win-win-win situation. The fisher gets to take the money out of his CCF without having to pay penalties and interest, but still pays the taxes when due; the government gets taxes on the withdrawals; and the resource and the fishers who remain in the fishery avoid further capitalization of an already overcapitalized industry. I look forward to working with Senator Murkowski, the fishing community, and the bill's other supporters to advance this legislation to the President's desk.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, just to wrap up, Senator Coats and I are going to come to the floor in the weeks ahead to outline some of the most outlandish examples of how broken our tax system is. We thought it was appropriate to start with the alternative minimum tax because it really is the poster child for how out of whack the American tax system has become. I think we have highlighted a number of our big concerns, but I want Senators to pick up on the last point Senator Coats made, and that is that the country cannot afford the status quo. The idea that you would just go out and pass what is called a patch, a kind of bandaid to try to make sure some of the pain is minimized for middle-class folks--the most recent patch for just 2 years cost $135 billion. The 10-year cost to make the current patch permanent is $683 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office. A patch does not protect everybody; it just limits the damage. What we want to say as we start this debate about how to go forward with tax reform is that the Congress cannot continue to handle the AMT with a patch. The country cannot afford it. Patching the AMT costs way too much, especially given the discussions we are having here, bipartisan discussions about how to deal with the Federal debt. The only affordable way to fix the alternative minimum tax, as Senator Coats has outlined this afternoon, is to fix it once and for all and do it within the context of comprehensive tax reform; to pick it up, as was done in the 1980s when a Republican President got together with Democratic Members of Congress and cleaned out special interest loopholes to hold down rates for everybody and give all Americans the opportunity to get ahead while still having a progressive tax system. We would repeal the alternative minimum tax once and for all and do it in a way that does not add to the Federal deficit. This is not Senator Coats and I plucking a figure out of the sky. The Joint Committee on Taxation has analyzed our bill, and under their analysis, Senator Coats and I eliminate the alternative minimum tax without adding to the Federal deficit. In my view, that is a pretty good way to start tax reform, start it in a bipartisan way and particularly by focusing on something that is so inequitable to hard-working middle- class people. I thank my good friend from Indiana. I am prepared to yield the floor if my colleague has anything else he wants to say. I want to express my appreciation for the chance to work with him. We cannot deal with these big economic issues, the big economic challenges our country faces without going forward in a bipartisan way. I am very fortunate to have such an able partner. I thank him.

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

Mr. WYDEN

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

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Coats, who is on the floor, and I be allowed up to 15 minutes to pursue a discussion about tax reform as if in morning business.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, Senator Coats and I have introduced bipartisan tax reform legislation. It is the first comprehensive overhaul of tax reform law in 25 years, since 1986, when then-President Reagan and Democrats got together and worked on a bipartisan reform that cleaned out scores of special interest tax breaks in order to hold down rates for all Americans and keep progressivity. Senator Coats and I have worked also with Senator Gregg. I had that good fortune for a number of years, and have picked up on some of what was done in 1986 by President Reagan and a large group of Democrats. He and I intend, in the days ahead, to come to the floor of the Senate and talk about some of the most offensive aspects of our totally dysfunctional tax system. Today, we thought we would begin by discussing the alternative minimum tax. It seems to be pretty much the poster child for what is broken about the American tax system. It was enacted in 1969, after the Congress learned that 3 years earlier 155 wealthy taxpayers had paid no tax at all. The alternative minimum tax was designed to hit what amounted to a small group of tax evaders and not the millions of middle-class taxpayers who get shellacked by the AMT every single springtime. The problem has been that Congress has never indexed the AMT brackets for inflation. While the regular tax bracket standard deductions and exemptions do get adjusted for inflation, the brackets and exemptions of the alternative minimum tax do not. As a result, millions of middle-class taxpayers, whose only fault is their incomes grew with the economy, now slip into this nefarious alternative minimum tax zone each year. I would be interested, for purposes of starting this colloquy, to get the reaction of my friend and partner on it. We are going to bring up a number of these aspects of the tax system that cry out for overall reform. But I wonder what my friend's sense is about starting today with the alternative minimum tax, and how important it is that reform is done there for middle-class folks in Indiana and around the country.

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I hope that folks paying attention to this tax reform debate pick up on what Senator Coats has just described. When the alternative minimum tax was first debated, the country was talking about 155 people. These were the so-called wealthy folks. They were paying no taxes at all. What Senator Coats has just described is, next year, what started as a program to try to make sure that 155 people didn't end up getting a sweetheart deal, now we are going to see 34 million people crushed by this inequitable kind of tax, a kind of bureaucratic water torture. We have about the same numbers in Oregon that Senator Coats has in Indiana. In 2008, 44,000 Oregon taxpayers had to pay the alternative minimum tax. Without some kind of extension or, as Senator Coats and I essentially want to do, abolishment of the alternative minimum tax, that is going to rise to close to 400,000 next year. The people who are getting hammered by this alternative minimum tax certainly don't fit that small class of the so-called freeloading wealthy folks who are figuring out ways to pay nothing. For example, a woman earns $65,000 in 2010, say she manages a health club, she has three kids, she has to file her taxes independent of her husband because they are in the middle of a divorce. As someone who is married, filing separately, she would have been hit by the AMT in 2010, according to the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. Think about that, a woman who manages a health club making $65,000, with three kids, filling out her taxes and going through the unbelievable headaches, being singled out under the alternative minimum tax. I ask my friend from Indiana--and I am sure he has very similar people in Indiana--is that the kind of person the alternative minimum tax was designed to scoop up back in 1969?

Mr. WYDEN. Would the Senator agree that the difficulty of projecting the AMT tax liability makes it tough for taxpayers to compute their estimated tax payments and creates a situation in which, just because of its complexity, they can get hit with penalties? I think the reason Oregonians are concerned about this--we have heard about it in the Senate Finance Committee--is that the AMT is essentially a separate tax system with its own tax rates and deduction rules which are less generous than regular rates and regular rules. This contributes to the tax-filing nightmare. The only way you can tell if you owe the alternative minimum tax is by filling out the forms or by being audited by the Internal Revenue Service. If it turns out you should have paid the alternative minimum tax and didn't, you owe back taxes plus any penalties or interests the IRS wants to dole out. My question is, I ask my good friend, how in the world is a typical taxpayer going to be able to make sense out of something like that which lots of accountants tell me they cannot even sort through?

Mr. WYDEN. The distinguished majority leader is here. I think we are about to wrap up. I am certainly happy to yield to him if he needs a few minutes to do the business of the Senate, and then Senator Coats and I will wrap up.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise today, once again, to advocate for patients and their access to more choice and competition in providing good quality health care by introducing The Ambulatory Surgical Center Quality and Access Act of 2011 with my colleague, Senator Crapo. Advocates for health care reform and a healthier nation continue to emphasize the importance of keeping patients ``out of the hospital.'' ASCs can help do that by providing cost-effective services in an outpatient setting. There are more than 5,200 Medicare-certified ASCs across all 50 States, with 83 in Oregon alone. These facilities, that employ the equivalent of 117,700 full-time workers nationwide, ensure that patients from Portland to Hermiston, from Klamath Falls to Coos Bay, have access to safe, effective, and quality surgical care. But ASCs can do more than provide the same services found in a Hospital Outpatient Department; they can do it at lower cost. Medicare saves an estimated $3 billion each year when surgical procedures are performed in ASCs rather than hospitals due to ASC reimbursement equaling 56 percent of what a hospital receives. Currently, Medicare uses two different factors to update reimbursement: one for ASCs and a different one for hospitals. ASC payments are updated based on the consumer price index, while hospital rates are updated using the hospital market basket, which specifically measures changes in the costs of providing health care. Both facilities can provide identical surgical procedures, so why aren't their respective reimbursements linked to the same update mechanism? Why should there be a double standard? This inequity could have significant consequences for both patients' access to services and Medicare's rate of outpatient expenditures if facilities begin consolidating or hospitals begin acquiring these practices in an attempt to reimburse for the same services at a higher rate--and cost to the taxpayer. The legislation Senator Crapo and I have introduced today, however, begins to address this in two ways: First, this bill creates parity by allowing ASC payment rates to be updated using the same market basket update hospitals use; and second, the bill goes a step further by establishing a Value-Based Purchasing program which will dispense shared savings payments based on quality reporting and improved performance. The Ambulatory Surgical Center Quality and Access Act puts commonsense policies in place that will enhance patients' access to quality care in a cost-effective way. I urge my colleagues to join us in cosponsoring this important legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I want to take a few minutes to discuss the underlying legislation, the Economic Development Administration bill, because I think, with the new numbers about the American economy--the joblessness and the trends--we are all looking for ways to encourage investment in the United States, and we are looking for ways to promote new industries that will create family wage jobs. The Economic Development Administration has helped to do that in my home State and in other parts of the country. I want to take a few minutes and discuss that. I see the chairman of the Finance Committee. We may have gotten a little backed up, and I am anxious to hear from the chairman of the Finance Committee. The area I want to talk about with respect to the Economic Development Administration involves nanotechnology. This is, in effect, the science of small stuff. We are seeing it pay off big in a whole host of energy-related applications, and in health care particularly, in terms of drugs and new medical devices. It has made a big difference at the Pentagon in terms of their looking at and adding carbon nanotubes to a number of the products we need to protect our warfighters. The fact is, when we talk about this agency, we are seeing that a small public investment can leverage very substantial private sector investment in a way that is going to encourage jobs in the United States, and particularly in what I call the sunrise industries. It is sure making a difference. For example, Wired magazine recently talked about growth in a number of key sectors. They said nanotechnology, between 2006 and 2010, grew more than 18 percent--one of our leading growth industries with jobs in the United States. I, for one, thought we were going to see growth in a number of instances. We have seen bipartisan support for congressional efforts. The 21st century nanotechnology legislation in particular, signed by George W. Bush, is one piece of legislation I was especially proud of being part of because it encouraged research in this exciting field and had bipartisan support. It laid the groundwork for the next steps. The next steps in particular involve using at EDA some modest public investments to leverage very substantial private investments in innovation. In my State, ONAMI, the Oregon Nanoscience and Microtechnologies Institute, is on the cutting edge of nanotechnology research and application. It has been helped by the EDA agency. Participants in ONAMI include Oregon's four largest public research universities, the National Science Foundation, the Departments of Defense, Energy, Commerce, and major corporations as well. What we have sought to do is to make sure in this extraordinarily exciting field we don't fall behind China and other global competitors. So there is huge potential. Federal efforts can support private sector initiatives in the nanotechnology field and together leverage U.S. advantages in innovation and technology and particularly facilitate job growth. The Chair knows of Intel, which is a large employer in his State as in mine. That is the kind of company we are looking at for the future, where they pay good wages. We are seeing substantial growth, and they are looking to try to target nanotechnology in particular as a sunrise industry, as an area that is going to facilitate an opportunity for our country to lead. America is in a fight for the future of nanotechnology. We are seeing China and a lot of our global competitors making major investments in this area. Our private sector is stepping up, but we ought to have the government partner as well. That is why EDA's support of nanotechnology and the innovation economy is so critical. They have partnered with the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health to promote innovative approaches in health and science. I am proud to say, as part of a major economic challenge grant, the Oregon Innovation Cluster, of which ONAMI is a part, was one of the award winners. My State is not the only place where nanotechnology investments are being made. The Economic Development Administration has invested in nanotechnology throughout the country--in Colorado, the Mid-Atlantic Nanotechnology Alliance; in Tennessee and in South Carolina with the Clemson University Research Foundation. These are just a few examples, from Oregon all the way to the east coast of the United States, where the Economic Development Administration has helped entrepreneurs work to create jobs in exciting fields such as nanotechnology and helped us commercialize leading-edge technologies. I hope my colleagues will support this bill. I particularly commend the chairman of the committee, Senator Boxer. Nanotechnology and EDA are a partnership where high-tech industries can help create good, high-paying jobs in America. I hope we will support this particular legislation.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today Sen. Crapo, Sen. Risch, Sen. Merkley, and I are introducing the Geothermal Production Expansion Act of 2011. The bill is aimed at making improvements to the Geothermal Steam Act and is very similar to legislation introduced in the 111th Congress as S. 3993. Both bills contain identical provisions to allow the Secretary of the Interior to lease a limited amount of public land adjacent to existing geothermal property at fair market value. The reason for this change is to allow the rapid expansion of already identified geothermal resources without the additional delays of competitive leasing and without opening up those adjacent properties to speculative bidders who have no interest in actually developing the resource, only in extracting as much money as they can from the existing geothermal lease holder. Current lease holders are understandably reluctant to nominate adjacent lands to proven resources for competitive leasing because doing so would immediately signal the value of those adjacent properties. As a result, existing geothermal developers will likely not realize the full potential of the geothermal energy resources that they have spent millions of dollars exploring, proving, and developing without these changes. And, the Treasury will not realize the economic value of those adjacent parcels, which go unleased and undeveloped as a result. For these reasons, the bill has the strong support of the Geothermal Energy Association. I want to emphasize that this bill is not a giveaway. The amount of land that can be leased non-competitively is limited to less than 640 acres per lease. It can only be leased where there are already proven resources and thus more likely than not to increase overall Federal royalties paid to the Treasury as the adjacent parcels are incorporated into the developer's geothermal energy project. Third, the bidder must pay fair market value for the lease as determined by the Interior Department. Finally, this bill contains an additional provision, which was not included in the prior version, which will significantly increase the annual rental payments for the newly acquired adjacent land in order to ensure that the bill comes as close as possible to full economic recovery for the taxpayers. Current law sets two different annual rental payment levels for geothermal leases. These are amounts that the lease-holder pays per year for every acre held in lease. The rental rate for non-competitive leases is $1 per acre per year. The rate for competitive leases begins at $2 per acre for the first year and increases to $3 for the next 9 years. The sole difference between the bill introduced in the prior Congress and the bill being introduced today is that the version being introduced today treats the new, adjacent lease as a competitive lease for determining the annual rental even though it is being acquired as a non-competitive lease. This will have the clear effect of raising the annual rental payments on the newly acquired adjacent lands to the higher rate of $2 and then $3 per acre and increase revenue to the Treasury. This change underscores our intent, as sponsors of the bill, to ensure that the result of these changes in the Geothermal Steam Act is truly to increase geothermal energy production on Federal lands without any overall loss of revenue to the taxpayers from non- competitive award of these adjacent lands. Geothermal energy is, by definition, a domestic renewable energy resource with enormous potential, but developers face high costs and economic risks of finding the right location to extract energy. These changes will help ensure that once those resources have been proven on Federal lands, they can be fully developed as quickly and efficiently as possible. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today Sen. Crapo, Sen. Risch, Sen. Merkley, and I are introducing the Geothermal Production Expansion Act of 2011. The bill is aimed at making improvements to the Geothermal Steam Act and is very similar to legislation introduced in the 111th Congress as S. 3993. Both bills contain identical provisions to allow the Secretary of the Interior to lease a limited amount of public land adjacent to existing geothermal property at fair market value. The reason for this change is to allow the rapid expansion of already identified geothermal resources without the additional delays of competitive leasing and without opening up those adjacent properties to speculative bidders who have no interest in actually developing the resource, only in extracting as much money as they can from the existing geothermal lease holder. Current lease holders are understandably reluctant to nominate adjacent lands to proven resources for competitive leasing because doing so would immediately signal the value of those adjacent properties. As a result, existing geothermal developers will likely not realize the full potential of the geothermal energy resources that they have spent millions of dollars exploring, proving, and developing without these changes. And, the Treasury will not realize the economic value of those adjacent parcels, which go unleased and undeveloped as a result. For these reasons, the bill has the strong support of the Geothermal Energy Association. I want to emphasize that this bill is not a giveaway. The amount of land that can be leased non-competitively is limited to less than 640 acres per lease. It can only be leased where there are already proven resources and thus more likely than not to increase overall Federal royalties paid to the Treasury as the adjacent parcels are incorporated into the developer's geothermal energy project. Third, the bidder must pay fair market value for the lease as determined by the Interior Department. Finally, this bill contains an additional provision, which was not included in the prior version, which will significantly increase the annual rental payments for the newly acquired adjacent land in order to ensure that the bill comes as close as possible to full economic recovery for the taxpayers. Current law sets two different annual rental payment levels for geothermal leases. These are amounts that the lease-holder pays per year for every acre held in lease. The rental rate for non-competitive leases is $1 per acre per year. The rate for competitive leases begins at $2 per acre for the first year and increases to $3 for the next 9 years. The sole difference between the bill introduced in the prior Congress and the bill being introduced today is that the version being introduced today treats the new, adjacent lease as a competitive lease for determining the annual rental even though it is being acquired as a non-competitive lease. This will have the clear effect of raising the annual rental payments on the newly acquired adjacent lands to the higher rate of $2 and then $3 per acre and increase revenue to the Treasury. This change underscores our intent, as sponsors of the bill, to ensure that the result of these changes in the Geothermal Steam Act is truly to increase geothermal energy production on Federal lands without any overall loss of revenue to the taxpayers from non- competitive award of these adjacent lands. Geothermal energy is, by definition, a domestic renewable energy resource with enormous potential, but developers face high costs and economic risks of finding the right location to extract energy. These changes will help ensure that once those resources have been proven on Federal lands, they can be fully developed as quickly and efficiently as possible. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 1082, introduced earlier today.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, Oregon Institute of Technology in Klamath Falls has long been a leader in America's effort to develop geothermal energy, and it's also a power in men's basketball, winning national titles in 2004 and 2008. Now, it is the national champion in women's softball. It is the first women's team to win a national championship at OIT, but I am sure it won't be the last. The Hustlin' Owls entered the national tournament ranked 18th in the Nation. They came out 1st in the Nation. They were led by a stellar performance from their pitcher and MVP, Jackie Imhof. In the final game, she pitched a shutout, allowing only four hits and striking out seven. Through the tournament, Imhof was 6-1 with an amazing earned run average 0f 0.59. Imhof and two other teammates, catcher Kayde Schaefer and shortstop Shauna Collins, made the all tournament team. Congratulations to coach Greg Stewart and the Hustlin' Owls of OIT. Clearly, they are doing something right at Oregon Institute of Technology.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, let me just make one last comment. I also wish to express my appreciation to Senator Merkley, who has been an extraordinarily outspoken advocate of our civil liberties and our privacy in striking a good balance between fighting terror and protecting the rights of our people, and I have so appreciated his leadership on this issue. Let me sum up. First, I am very grateful to our chairwoman and pleased with this agreement. The chairwoman has indicated she believes those of us who want to reform secret law have raised a serious and important issue. Those are her words. We are grateful for that because we obviously believe very strongly about it. The chairwoman has said we will hold hearings promptly to examine the secret law issue, give serious consideration to looking at reforms in the fiscal year 2012 intelligence authorization bill, and then, per our conversations with the majority leader, if Senator Udall and I believed it had not been corrected on the intelligence authorization bill, we would have the right to offer--and certainly the chairwoman could oppose it--an amendment on the floor of the Senate on an unrelated bill. Senator Reid, to his great credit, in an effort to try to resolve this and move it along, said to the three of us that he would be working to do that. Again, our thanks to the chairwoman and all of my colleagues on the floor, including Senator Merkley, who is not a member of the committee and knows an incredible amount about it and certainly showed that last night in our discussions and was very helpful. I wish to yield to him. So with the cooperation the chairwoman has shown all of us who are trying to change this and the efforts of Senator Reid to make sure if we didn't work it out we could come back to the floor again, I withdraw the Wyden-Udall amendment for the time being. It ought to be clear to everybody in the Senate that we are going to continue to prosecute the cause of making more open and accountable the way the government interprets this law in making sure that the American people have the confidence that the way it is being interpreted is in line with the text of the legislation. I withdraw at this time the Wyden-Udall amendment, and I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I have enormous respect for my special friend from California, the distinguished chairwoman of the Intelligence Committee. I have literally sat next to her for more than a decade. We agree on virtually all of these issues, but this is an area where we have had a difference of opinion. I have said I wouldn't support a long-term reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act without significant reforms, particularly in this area. I am especially troubled by the fact that the U.S. Government's official interpretation of the PATRIOT Act is secret, and I believe a significant gap has developed now between what the public thinks the law says and what the government secretly claims it says. That is why I and my colleagues from Oregon and Colorado and New Mexico have proposed an amendment that would make these legal interpretations public.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairwoman of the Intelligence Committee for proposing this course of action for addressing the secret law issue. Obviously, colleagues would like more information on that, and they are going to be in a position to know that the Intelligence Committee is going to be examining it closely. I will just describe the next steps from there. Senator Udall and I have discussed this issue with Senator Reid. Senator Reid indicated to the chairwoman and myself and Senator Udall that we would have an opportunity through these hearings--and, of course, any amendments to the bill would be discussed on the intelligence authorization legislation, which is a matter that obviously has to be classified--but if we were not satisfied, if we were not satisfied through that process, we would have the ability to offer an amendment such as our original one on the Senate floor. Of course, the chairwoman would still retain full rights to oppose it, but we would make sure if this issue of secret law wasn't fixed and there wasn't an improved process to make more transparent and more open the interpretation of the law--not what are called sources and methods which are so important to protect our people--we would have an opportunity, if it wasn't corrected in the intelligence community, to come to the floor. Senator Reid has just indicated to all of us that he would focus on giving us a vote if we believed it was needed on another bill--not the intelligence authorization--before September 30. So there is a plan to actually get this fixed, and that is what is key. At this time I yield to the Senator from Colorado.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to engage in a colloquy between Senators Udall, Feinstein, and Merkley.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I am going to talk for just a couple of minutes about the issue of secret law that Senator Udall and I, as we are both members of the Intelligence Committee, have been working on for quite some time. Then I am going to yield to our friend, the distinguished chairwoman of the Intelligence Committee, Senator Feinstein, for a colloquy. What this issue is all about is this: I believe there are two PATRIOT Acts in America. The first is the text of the law itself, and the second is the government's secret interpretation of what they believe the law means. As an example, several years ago Americans woke up to learn that the Bush administration had been secretly claiming for years that warrantless wiretapping was legal. This disclosure greatly undermined the public's trust in the Department of Justice and our national intelligence agencies, and it took Congress and the executive branch years to sort out the situation. I believe the American people will also be extremely surprised when they learn how the PATRIOT Act is secretly being interpreted, and I believe one consequence will be an erosion of public confidence that makes it more difficult for our critically important national intelligence agencies to function effectively. As someone who served on the Intelligence Committee for 10 years, sitting right next to Senator Feinstein, I don't want to see that happen. Let me yield now to Senator Udall. He will also have brief remarks, and any colleagues who want to speak, and then Senator Feinstein will lead us in the discussion of how we will be moving forward. So I yield to Senator Udall who has been an invaluable member on the Intelligence Committee. He and I have worked on this since the day he joined our committee, and I am so appreciative of his involvement.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Sessions be recognized to speak for up to 20 minutes for debate only.