Ron Wyden

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Well said.

Mr. WYDEN. Would my colleague yield for a question?

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing legislation to authorize the Bureau of Reclamation to share in the cost of the construction of a new wastewater treatment plant for Hermiston, Oregon. The bill is identical to legislation which passed the House of Representatives in the previous Congress, by voice vote, and which was reported by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee without opposition last year. The reason for involving the Bureau in this project is quite simple. Once constructed, the plant will provide the Bureau-authorized West Extension Irrigation District with enough additional high-quality water per year to irrigate approximately 600 acres of high value crops. This will have a significant, long-term benefit to the farming industry in the Hermiston area. The Hermiston project has gotten the sign off at every level from the local irrigation district to Federal agencies. The City and the Bureau have completed the required feasibility report and the Bureau of Reclamation has formally concluded that the project meets the requirements of the Title XVI cost-sharing program. The regional office of the National Marine Fisheries Service at NOAA has completed a biological opinion approving the project. The City and the West Extension Irrigation District have signed a memorandum of understanding to work together to develop the project. The Bureau has concluded its environmental review of the authorization to transfer the water to the District and issued a finding of no significant impact or FONSI. Although the Bureau will be sharing in the cost of the project, I want my colleagues to know that the City, not the Bureau, will be responsible for the bulk of the expense. CBO has estimated that the Federal share of the $26 million project would be $7 million or just over one-quarter of the cost. The Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation have also recognized the benefits of the project and support it. These benefits include a significant improvement in the quality of water discharged to the Umatilla River in winter and protection of sensitive fish habitat during summer. These benefits have led the tribe to endorse construction of the Hermiston Water Recycling System Improvement Project and the City's effort to obtain federal funding. This project will increase agricultural production while improving the local economy, the environment and habitat for endangered fish. I look forward to working with my colleagues to complete action on this legislation after it had advanced so far in the last Congress.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing legislation to authorize the Bureau of Reclamation to share in the cost of the construction of a new wastewater treatment plant for Hermiston, Oregon. The bill is identical to legislation which passed the House of Representatives in the previous Congress, by voice vote, and which was reported by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee without opposition last year. The reason for involving the Bureau in this project is quite simple. Once constructed, the plant will provide the Bureau-authorized West Extension Irrigation District with enough additional high-quality water per year to irrigate approximately 600 acres of high value crops. This will have a significant, long-term benefit to the farming industry in the Hermiston area. The Hermiston project has gotten the sign off at every level from the local irrigation district to Federal agencies. The City and the Bureau have completed the required feasibility report and the Bureau of Reclamation has formally concluded that the project meets the requirements of the Title XVI cost-sharing program. The regional office of the National Marine Fisheries Service at NOAA has completed a biological opinion approving the project. The City and the West Extension Irrigation District have signed a memorandum of understanding to work together to develop the project. The Bureau has concluded its environmental review of the authorization to transfer the water to the District and issued a finding of no significant impact or FONSI. Although the Bureau will be sharing in the cost of the project, I want my colleagues to know that the City, not the Bureau, will be responsible for the bulk of the expense. CBO has estimated that the Federal share of the $26 million project would be $7 million or just over one-quarter of the cost. The Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation have also recognized the benefits of the project and support it. These benefits include a significant improvement in the quality of water discharged to the Umatilla River in winter and protection of sensitive fish habitat during summer. These benefits have led the tribe to endorse construction of the Hermiston Water Recycling System Improvement Project and the City's effort to obtain federal funding. This project will increase agricultural production while improving the local economy, the environment and habitat for endangered fish. I look forward to working with my colleagues to complete action on this legislation after it had advanced so far in the last Congress.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, let me start by discussing briefly what happened in 2005. Then-President George W. Bush spoke to the American Society of Newspaper Editors. It was at their convention in 2005. Then, as now, energy was a very important issue--obviously, central to our economy. President George W. Bush made some very important remarks, in my view, at that convention. I would like to read briefly what President Bush said to the convention. On energy, he said: One of the initiatives I will push, again, is to get an energy bill out. I will tell you with $55 oil we don't need incentives to oil and gas companies to explore. There are plenty of incentives. What we need is to put a strategy in place that will help this country over time become less dependent. It's really important. It's an important part of our economic security, and it's an important part of our national security. George W. Bush was right then, and he is just as accurate today. His comments with respect to the importance of an energy bill to our economic security and national security, in my view, is indisputably accurate. Because the President, who of course comes from oil country and has been an oil man himself, took this position, I thought it important to look at that in the context of where we were headed in terms of our country's energy policy. We had a hearing back then, in 2005. We had all the major oil companies with us that day, their executives. In fact, one of them who was before the Finance Committee last week, Mr. Mulva, also was there in 2005. I asked each of the executives of the five major oil companies whether they agreed with the statement George W. Bush had given to the American Newspaper Convention, and all of the major oil companies testified at this joint hearing that they agreed with President George W. Bush. They said they did not need any incentives. There were no qualifiers, there were no caveats, there was no this, there was no that. The five major oil companies, through their CEOs, said they did not need any incentives to explore for oil. Period, end of discussion. I thought it important to get that on the record to compare it to their views now. Last week, in the Senate Finance Committee on which I am honored to serve, we got a very different story. In effect, the CEOs did an about- face. Frankly, they did it with a pretty straight face. Each of them defended the $2 billion a year in tax breaks they specifically get for exploration and drilling. These are industry-specific tax breaks. I know there has been a lot of confusion in this discussion. Is this effort somehow about ending something that other people get as well? Why don't we move on to tax reform? I don't take a back seat to anybody on this tax reform issue. I have been involved in the first and only bipartisan tax reform effort in the last quarter century with our former colleague, Senator Gregg, and now Senator Coats. So tax reform is certainly crucial. But now we are talking about industry-specific tax breaks, and the five major oil companies that said they did not need them in 2005--in fact, basically, said they didn't even get them--now say somehow if they don't continue to get them, we are going to have enormous economic problems. These are not just plain old tax breaks. Tax credits such as ``expensing of intangible drilling costs'' under section 263 of the Tax Code and ``amortization of geological and geophysical costs'' under section 167 of the code are, in fact, not available to every American business. We are talking, again, about specific sections of the Tax Code. I mentioned two, section 263 and section 167. These oil and gas provisions which President Bush, in 2005, said were not needed--the executives in 2005 said they were not needed--are not like every other business tax provision. How many businesses do we know that have expenses for oil drilling that are not in the oil business? At the Finance Committee last week the CEO of Chevron said the intangible drilling tax break was like the research and development tax credit that all other American companies get. That is not accurate. First of all, as I reminded that CEO, oil companies also get the R&D tax credit. When they have legitimate R&D expenses, they can claim the credit. If intangible drilling costs were just like research costs for the oil and gas industry, they would be getting two tax breaks for the same thing. That would be double dipping at taxpayer expense. In reality, as the major oil companies know, building access roads to bring in drilling rigs--which is the kind of thing that is covered by the intangible drilling provision--is nothing like the research and development tax incentive. It is a cost of doing business in their major business, drilling for oil. What is more, the tax breaks for these kinds of expenses are usually spread out over a number of years, but with expensing of drilling costs the oil companies get to write off these costs in the first year. They not only get extra tax breaks that other companies do not get, they also get to claim these breaks sooner than would other types of businesses. It simply defies old-fashioned common sense to claim that the tax incentives oil companies get for exploration and drilling costs, which they did not need when oil was $55 a barrel, somehow today become essential when oil is at $100 a barrel. Even if we adjust for inflation, today's oil price is $30 to $40 a barrel more than it was in 2005--not a couple of dollars more but substantially more, no matter which of the inflation indices you use. Just so there was no confusion about what was said in 2005, I thought it was important to actually look at that video and, as I indicated, each of the CEOs of the major oil companies reversed their position from 2005 and said those billions of dollars in tax breaks were essential if they were to continue to drill for oil. In 2005 the price of gasoline at the pump had soared to what was then a record high. Today the price of gasoline is just below the all-time high price set in 2008. Then, as now, the oil companies were reporting record-high profits. So both in 2005 and today the oil companies have high prices and certainly record profits to incentivise them to drill for oil. Then the question is, What has changed from 2005 until now to continue justifying providing these major companies with taxpayer subsidies? I want to spend a couple of minutes unpacking a couple of the arguments we heard at the Senate Finance Committee. Last week we heard from the CEOs that oil was getting harder and harder to find, and they faced increased global competition. If anything, U.S. oil supplies and prices are less tied to the global market now, and new oil supplies are easier to find than they were in 2005. After declining steadily since the mid-1980s, U.S. oil and natural gas production has begun to climb since 2008 due to new onshore discoveries in shale formations and development in the Gulf of Mexico. As the distinguished Presiding Officer knows, we have great interest in this subject of natural gas and discussed it this morning in the Senate Energy Committee. The location and technology for getting oil and gas, especially from these onshore shale formations, have not only dramatically increased U.S. oil and gas reserves, but the technology is now sufficiently well established that U.S. oil and gas production is rising, and rising rapidly as a result. According to a recent analysis by the U.S. Energy Information Administration, oil production from the Barnett Shale formation in Texas--literally in the backyards of the headquarters of some of the companies we heard from last week in the committee--oil production from that Barnett Shale formation in Texas has tripled since 2005. In North Dakota, oil production from shale has gone from next to zero in 2005 to 240,000 barrels a day and is expected to continue to grow. In 2010, production in the Woodford Shale in Oklahoma increased 40 percent between 2009 and 2010. In one area after another, there was significant increase in production. In fact, total oil production has increased over 10 percent since hitting its low point in 2008, and the Energy Information Administration predicts that because of the increased production in oil shale and other sources in the Gulf of Mexico, it is going to continue to grow. U.S. prices are also less tied to global markets and competition now than they were in 2005 because of the increased U.S. production and increased Canadian tar sands production that is pouring into the U.S. market. This ought to be of no surprise to the five major oil companies that testified last week because each of them has also made significant investments in the Canadian tar sands project. According to the Wall Street Journal, in 2009, Exxon announced it had acquired more reserves than it had produced for the 15th straight year, and half of those new reserves, 1.1 billion barrels of crude, were from a single Canadian tar sands project it was developing--a topic for another day. I see my friend from Oklahoma on the Senate floor. Canadian tar sands developers are so concerned about the oversupply of tar sands oil to the North American market that they are pushing to build a new pipeline, the Keystone Pipeline, to the Gulf of Mexico that would allow them to export crude and refined products to the other markets. The argument that it is just too hard to find new sources of oil simply does not hold water. Further evidence of just how much the U.S. and North American markets are being disconnected from global competition by these developments is the fact that the benchmark U.S. oil price, West Texas Intermediate, has been selling for $10 and $20 a barrel less than the benchmark for European oil. If supply was as tight in the United States as some of the majors told us last week, there would not be such a discrepancy in prices. Last point. The Senate will certainly be hearing arguments that the loss of these tax breaks is going to drive up the price at the pump. This is, obviously, very much on the mind of every Senator when our people are struggling to pay the already steep cost of filling their tanks. At the 2005 hearing I also asked the CEOs about ending these tax breaks on their companies, and several of them said it would not affect them, or it would only affect them minimally. The CEO of Exxon said: ``As for my company, it doesn't make any difference.'' The Chevron CEO said ending these tax breaks would have ``minimal impact on our company.'' The CEO of BP said the same thing: ``It's a minimal impact on us.'' Again, common sense would tell us major oil companies earning combined profits of close to $32 billion in a single fiscal quarter would not suffer a big economic impact from the loss of those industry- specific tax breaks I have been talking about. They are certainly not going to stop doing business with prices at $100 a barrel. In an important moment last Thursday, our colleague, Senator Cantwell, asked the head of Exxon what the price of oil actually should be with all other things being equal. Mr. Tillerson, the head of Exxon, said the price of producing the next marginal barrel of oil was probably between $60 and $70 a barrel. That is $30 to $40 a barrel profit at current prices. It is simply not credible to think these companies would significantly change their investment decisions if they lost these tax breaks, and the Congressional Research Service in a report last week concluded exactly the same thing. I began my remarks this afternoon by quoting George W. Bush at the Newspaper Publishers Convention in 2005. He said the major companies did not need incentives to drill for oil at that price. I continue to ask how in the world, given George W. Bush's comments in 2005 and the other considerations I have outlined--that, again, prices are way in excess of inflation; again, profits are at record highs--how in the world can you justify getting industry-specific subsidies when George W. Bush said no incentives--no incentives--and he said it without a qualifier or a caveat--were warranted if you wanted to drill for oil. As we move to this vote, I hope my colleagues will keep in mind the words of George W. Bush then. In my view, they are even more accurate today. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, before she leaves the floor, I want to say to my seatmate on the Energy Committee, I am looking forward to working closely with her on a host of these issues. I think she is spot-on with respect to her concern about the independents. This morning we talked about natural gas, where there is enormous potential. I want to assure my friend and colleague I will be working very closely with her.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today Sen. Stabenow and I are introducing legislation designed to reduce our dependence on imported oil by replacing it with cleaner, domestic sources of energy to power our cars, trucks, buses, tractors, and ships. The only way to reduce our Nation's dependence on foreign oil is to reduce our dependence on oil. When it comes to reducing our use of oil, transportation is where the vast bulk of America's oil use is. Over 70 percent of all of the oil used in the U.S. is used for transportation. Unless we do something about the amount of oil used by our transportation sector, we have no chance of making a significant dent in our dependence on oil. The goal of this bill is to replace a significant portion of that oil with home- grown alternative fuels--electricity, natural gas, propane, biofuels, and hydrogen. We believe this will create jobs and economic growth here in the U.S. and reduce the relentless flow of dollars overseas to buy oil. Many of our colleagues share our concern and have been strong advocates for individual vehicle technologies. Indeed, both Sen. Stabenow and I voted last year in the Senate Energy Committee to support legislation by Sen. Dorgan, Sen. Merkley and Sen. Alexander to promote electric vehicles. With electric vehicles, fuel can come from many sources, and very little of it from oil. With plug-in electric technology now hitting the streets, you can literally use power from a wind turbine to drive to the store. Sen. Menendez and Sen. Reid have offered bills to promote natural gas vehicles. Natural gas is a natural fuel for many vehicle applications and it now appears that there are significant new natural gas resources here in North America that could be tapped to replace imported oil. At the end of the day, however, different fuels are going to work better in different types of vehicles and in different parts of the country. For that reason, our bill does not pick technology winners and losers. It is ``technology neutral,'' ``geography neutral'' and ``market neutral.'' An alternative fuel that is readily available in one part of the country may not be readily available in every part of the country, or it may not work as well in an 18 wheel tractor-trailer as in the family car. Our bill does not chose which fuel is used where, or for what kind of vehicles. We leave that up to the free market so that fuel providers and vehicle manufacturers can compete for what works best for their customers. While it is true that cars and pick-up trucks use about 63 percent of all transportation fuel, that still means that well over a third is used in other kinds of vehicles. Medium and heavy trucks and buses, for example, use about 20 percent of all motor fuel. Our bill is aimed at making inroads on oil imports all up and down the road, in all kinds of vehicles, and even for off-road vehicles and engines that aren't on the road at all. Our bottom line goal is to help American businesses, which build vehicles and supply fuel, provide genuine alternatives to conventional fuels and engine technologies so that Americans can reduce our dependence on foreign oil. The bill does this by providing a set of tools to promote the deployment of these technologies while keeping in mind the difficult budget situation the country faces. In several instances, the bill modifies existing programs, rather than create new ones, and it includes a source of funds to pay for the new programs it does create. First, the bill takes the existing advanced vehicle manufacturing support program at the U.S. Department of Energy, which is now focused on providing financial support to major manufacturers of light duty vehicles, and opens it up to alternative fuel technologies. It also expands the program to component manufacturers further down the supply chain and to the production of medium and heavy trucks, buses, and transit vehicles and lifts the cap on the amount of loans that can be made to American manufacturers and their suppliers. Alternative fuel vehicles need alternative fuel. So the next major initiative in the bill is to provide financial support for the production and distribution of those alternative fuels. Again, instead of creating a whole new program to support this alternative fuel infrastructure, the bill modifies the existing clean energy Department of Energy loan guarantee program created section 1703 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. This loan program was aimed at financing new, innovative low-carbon electricity generation technologies. That is all well and good, but those investments do not address the very real energy security challenge facing our country from oil imports, especially since so little electricity in the U.S. is actually generated using oil. Our bill would allow this already existing program to be used for alternative fuel infrastructure. The bill includes additional measures to provide technical assistance to States and local governments, public-private partnerships and utility companies and utility commissions to help overcome barriers to the deployment of these alternative fuel vehicles. The bill provides worker training and technology research programs to make sure there is a skilled workforce and new technologies. Taken altogether, these provisions are designed to provide the tools for manufacturers, parts suppliers, fuel providers, transportation planners, utility regulators, and State and local officials to deploy alternative fuel vehicles, and the fuels to power them, in numbers that make a difference and truly reduce our dependence on imported oil. Finally, the bill includes a funding offset by capping the size of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, SPR, at 90 days of non-North American crude oil and petroleum fuel imports. Under current law, the SPR is supposed to grow to 1 billion barrels at a cost of over $5 billion for construction and, at current prices, over $30 billion to fill it with oil. Buying more insurance doesn't make that old car any safer. While I support having a Strategic Petroleum Reserve, the plain truth of the matter is that spending billions of additional dollars to put more oil into the SPR will not reduce our dependence on oil imports by a single barrel. This bill would take the money generated by reducing the size of the SPR and reinvest it in alternative energy technologies that will, in fact, genuinely reduce that dependence. Rather than putting more oil in the ground for short-term supply emergencies, we put American innovation to work to reduce our Nation's oil dependence permanently. I applaud my colleague from Oregon, Senator Merkley, and our other Senate colleagues, for recognizing that new vehicle technologies now entering the market are not just scientific curiosities, but game- changing opportunities to finally get our country off of its addiction to oil. I look forward to working with them to enact programs and policies that ensure these alternative fuel technologies succeed in the marketplace. 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. Stabenow and I are introducing legislation designed to reduce our dependence on imported oil by replacing it with cleaner, domestic sources of energy to power our cars, trucks, buses, tractors, and ships. The only way to reduce our Nation's dependence on foreign oil is to reduce our dependence on oil. When it comes to reducing our use of oil, transportation is where the vast bulk of America's oil use is. Over 70 percent of all of the oil used in the U.S. is used for transportation. Unless we do something about the amount of oil used by our transportation sector, we have no chance of making a significant dent in our dependence on oil. The goal of this bill is to replace a significant portion of that oil with home- grown alternative fuels--electricity, natural gas, propane, biofuels, and hydrogen. We believe this will create jobs and economic growth here in the U.S. and reduce the relentless flow of dollars overseas to buy oil. Many of our colleagues share our concern and have been strong advocates for individual vehicle technologies. Indeed, both Sen. Stabenow and I voted last year in the Senate Energy Committee to support legislation by Sen. Dorgan, Sen. Merkley and Sen. Alexander to promote electric vehicles. With electric vehicles, fuel can come from many sources, and very little of it from oil. With plug-in electric technology now hitting the streets, you can literally use power from a wind turbine to drive to the store. Sen. Menendez and Sen. Reid have offered bills to promote natural gas vehicles. Natural gas is a natural fuel for many vehicle applications and it now appears that there are significant new natural gas resources here in North America that could be tapped to replace imported oil. At the end of the day, however, different fuels are going to work better in different types of vehicles and in different parts of the country. For that reason, our bill does not pick technology winners and losers. It is ``technology neutral,'' ``geography neutral'' and ``market neutral.'' An alternative fuel that is readily available in one part of the country may not be readily available in every part of the country, or it may not work as well in an 18 wheel tractor-trailer as in the family car. Our bill does not chose which fuel is used where, or for what kind of vehicles. We leave that up to the free market so that fuel providers and vehicle manufacturers can compete for what works best for their customers. While it is true that cars and pick-up trucks use about 63 percent of all transportation fuel, that still means that well over a third is used in other kinds of vehicles. Medium and heavy trucks and buses, for example, use about 20 percent of all motor fuel. Our bill is aimed at making inroads on oil imports all up and down the road, in all kinds of vehicles, and even for off-road vehicles and engines that aren't on the road at all. Our bottom line goal is to help American businesses, which build vehicles and supply fuel, provide genuine alternatives to conventional fuels and engine technologies so that Americans can reduce our dependence on foreign oil. The bill does this by providing a set of tools to promote the deployment of these technologies while keeping in mind the difficult budget situation the country faces. In several instances, the bill modifies existing programs, rather than create new ones, and it includes a source of funds to pay for the new programs it does create. First, the bill takes the existing advanced vehicle manufacturing support program at the U.S. Department of Energy, which is now focused on providing financial support to major manufacturers of light duty vehicles, and opens it up to alternative fuel technologies. It also expands the program to component manufacturers further down the supply chain and to the production of medium and heavy trucks, buses, and transit vehicles and lifts the cap on the amount of loans that can be made to American manufacturers and their suppliers. Alternative fuel vehicles need alternative fuel. So the next major initiative in the bill is to provide financial support for the production and distribution of those alternative fuels. Again, instead of creating a whole new program to support this alternative fuel infrastructure, the bill modifies the existing clean energy Department of Energy loan guarantee program created section 1703 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. This loan program was aimed at financing new, innovative low-carbon electricity generation technologies. That is all well and good, but those investments do not address the very real energy security challenge facing our country from oil imports, especially since so little electricity in the U.S. is actually generated using oil. Our bill would allow this already existing program to be used for alternative fuel infrastructure. The bill includes additional measures to provide technical assistance to States and local governments, public-private partnerships and utility companies and utility commissions to help overcome barriers to the deployment of these alternative fuel vehicles. The bill provides worker training and technology research programs to make sure there is a skilled workforce and new technologies. Taken altogether, these provisions are designed to provide the tools for manufacturers, parts suppliers, fuel providers, transportation planners, utility regulators, and State and local officials to deploy alternative fuel vehicles, and the fuels to power them, in numbers that make a difference and truly reduce our dependence on imported oil. Finally, the bill includes a funding offset by capping the size of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, SPR, at 90 days of non-North American crude oil and petroleum fuel imports. Under current law, the SPR is supposed to grow to 1 billion barrels at a cost of over $5 billion for construction and, at current prices, over $30 billion to fill it with oil. Buying more insurance doesn't make that old car any safer. While I support having a Strategic Petroleum Reserve, the plain truth of the matter is that spending billions of additional dollars to put more oil into the SPR will not reduce our dependence on oil imports by a single barrel. This bill would take the money generated by reducing the size of the SPR and reinvest it in alternative energy technologies that will, in fact, genuinely reduce that dependence. Rather than putting more oil in the ground for short-term supply emergencies, we put American innovation to work to reduce our Nation's oil dependence permanently. I applaud my colleague from Oregon, Senator Merkley, and our other Senate colleagues, for recognizing that new vehicle technologies now entering the market are not just scientific curiosities, but game- changing opportunities to finally get our country off of its addiction to oil. I look forward to working with them to enact programs and policies that ensure these alternative fuel technologies succeed in the marketplace. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Digital Goods and Services Tax Fairness Act. I am pleased to be joined by my colleague from South Dakota, Senator Thune, in introducing this needed legislation. The creation and consumption of downloadable digital goods, like books, songs, ringtones and video games, and the provision of digital services, like health care monitoring and cloud computing, represent a rapidly growing segment of our national economy. These goods and services, which are supporting a growing number of American jobs, are sold over communications networks that transcend numerous state and local boundaries. Tax law, not surprisingly, has failed to keep pace with the rapidly changing technology and economy. The lack of a national framework addressing how State and local taxes can be imposed upon these products has led to a confusing process that will only grow more burdensome for consumers and the providers of digital commerce as new, innovative and emerging technologies become available. Since digital goods and services can be downloaded in a mobile environment, there is a significant question as to which jurisdiction has the authority to tax such purchases. In fact, there is substantial risk that, without a national framework, multiple States and localities will claim they have authority to tax the same digital transaction. For example, if a consumer is on vacation in another State and downloads a song, the State the consumer is visiting, the State that houses the server providing the song, and the consumer's home State could all claim the authority to tax the purchase. This is not only an unfair tax burden on the consumer, but also for the seller that is responsible for identifying the jurisdiction on whose behalf it should be collecting taxes. Left unchecked, these multiple taxes could stifle the digital commerce and crush a growing industry that is creating the good jobs that our country needs. We can't let that happen. We need a uniform solution that will modernize our State and local tax system to appropriately address the inherent complexities that digital commerce presents. Neutrality should guide tax policy and administration in the area of digital commerce. Transactions involving similar types of goods and services should be taxed fairly, regardless of the method and means of distribution, whether through electronic transfer or through other channels of commerce. To ensure neutrality and avoid multiple taxation, rules should be adopted to reflect the unique nature of electronic commerce and how digital goods and digital services are provided. I am introducing the Digital Goods and Services Tax Fairness Act to establish a framework for when and how local governments can tax digital goods and services. The framework put forward in the legislation respects States' authority to tax these products while also fostering innovation and growth in this segment of global commerce. In most cases, this legislation will use the address of the consumer to determine which jurisdiction has the authority to tax a digital purchase, as long as the State has passed a law to do so and is lawfully able under the Internet Tax Freedom Act and the Supreme Court's Quill decision. Similar to mobile phones, digital purchases should be taxed by the State the consumer resides, not the State that they may have been traveling through while they downloaded the digital product. This legislation would also preclude discriminatory taxes from being imposed on digital goods and services solely because they are transmitted over communication networks. Additionally, this legislation would ensure that if States tax digital goods and services, they should only be taxed at the same rate imposed upon other tangible goods taxed under the general sales tax. The Digital Goods and Services Tax Fairness Act of 2011 is structured to provide discipline, but also certainty to States and local governments that wish to tax digital commerce and to the businesses and consumers that are engaged in this marketplace. Our economy is changing in a variety of exciting ways. Congress must be responsive to this reality and consider this legislation soon.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Digital Goods and Services Tax Fairness Act. I am pleased to be joined by my colleague from South Dakota, Senator Thune, in introducing this needed legislation. The creation and consumption of downloadable digital goods, like books, songs, ringtones and video games, and the provision of digital services, like health care monitoring and cloud computing, represent a rapidly growing segment of our national economy. These goods and services, which are supporting a growing number of American jobs, are sold over communications networks that transcend numerous state and local boundaries. Tax law, not surprisingly, has failed to keep pace with the rapidly changing technology and economy. The lack of a national framework addressing how State and local taxes can be imposed upon these products has led to a confusing process that will only grow more burdensome for consumers and the providers of digital commerce as new, innovative and emerging technologies become available. Since digital goods and services can be downloaded in a mobile environment, there is a significant question as to which jurisdiction has the authority to tax such purchases. In fact, there is substantial risk that, without a national framework, multiple States and localities will claim they have authority to tax the same digital transaction. For example, if a consumer is on vacation in another State and downloads a song, the State the consumer is visiting, the State that houses the server providing the song, and the consumer's home State could all claim the authority to tax the purchase. This is not only an unfair tax burden on the consumer, but also for the seller that is responsible for identifying the jurisdiction on whose behalf it should be collecting taxes. Left unchecked, these multiple taxes could stifle the digital commerce and crush a growing industry that is creating the good jobs that our country needs. We can't let that happen. We need a uniform solution that will modernize our State and local tax system to appropriately address the inherent complexities that digital commerce presents. Neutrality should guide tax policy and administration in the area of digital commerce. Transactions involving similar types of goods and services should be taxed fairly, regardless of the method and means of distribution, whether through electronic transfer or through other channels of commerce. To ensure neutrality and avoid multiple taxation, rules should be adopted to reflect the unique nature of electronic commerce and how digital goods and digital services are provided. I am introducing the Digital Goods and Services Tax Fairness Act to establish a framework for when and how local governments can tax digital goods and services. The framework put forward in the legislation respects States' authority to tax these products while also fostering innovation and growth in this segment of global commerce. In most cases, this legislation will use the address of the consumer to determine which jurisdiction has the authority to tax a digital purchase, as long as the State has passed a law to do so and is lawfully able under the Internet Tax Freedom Act and the Supreme Court's Quill decision. Similar to mobile phones, digital purchases should be taxed by the State the consumer resides, not the State that they may have been traveling through while they downloaded the digital product. This legislation would also preclude discriminatory taxes from being imposed on digital goods and services solely because they are transmitted over communication networks. Additionally, this legislation would ensure that if States tax digital goods and services, they should only be taxed at the same rate imposed upon other tangible goods taxed under the general sales tax. The Digital Goods and Services Tax Fairness Act of 2011 is structured to provide discipline, but also certainty to States and local governments that wish to tax digital commerce and to the businesses and consumers that are engaged in this marketplace. Our economy is changing in a variety of exciting ways. Congress must be responsive to this reality and consider this legislation soon.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, in March, I was compelled to place a hold on the nomination of Jo Ann Rooney to be Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, when I was not satisfied that the military had properly investigated the mistreatment of some members of the Oregon National Guard who were demobilizing at Joint Base Lewis-McChord, JBLM. I am pleased to say that today I am lifting that hold. I have had meetings and exchanged letters with Secretary of the Army John McHugh, Army Vice Chief of Staff General Peter Chiarelli, Major General Philip Volpe, Jo Ann Rooney, and Dr. Clifford Stanley, who will be Dr. Rooney's supervisor if she is confirmed. I have also received several documents related to the investigations, and written answers to more than 60 questions about the investigations. I am satisfied that the actions taken by the Army put them on the right path to ensuring that future National Guard soldiers receive all of the care and benefits to which they are entitled. I will continue to closely monitor the implementation of the changes the Army is making. However, I believe that Dr. Rooney would, if confirmed, work to ensure that all servicemembers get appropriate medical care, and improve the demobilization process. I would urge the Senate to quickly and positively act on Dr. Rooney's nomination.

Mr. WYDEN

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

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. I come to the floor to honor a man who touched every corner of my home State of Oregon. Harold Schnitzer left his mark on our business community, the arts, health care, education, and practically every nook and cranny of my home State. Harold Schnitzer died last week of complications relating to cancer and diabetes. He learned of his impending death earlier this year and faced it with extraordinary style, grace, and the wit that marked his 87 years of life. Those who knew Harold Schnitzer describe him in one of two ways. Many knew him as a powerful and philanthropic force in our State. Others knew him as approachable, easygoing, and especially as a person who never took himself all that seriously. I knew him in both ways, and I knew him as a friend. Like many in Oregon, I am saddened by Harold's passing. Harold was a successful real estate developer. He and his wife of 62 years, Arlene, gave generously to my alma mater, the University of Oregon, and to Portland State University. They established the Harold Schnitzer Diabetes Health Center at the Oregon Health Sciences University. Their gifts of art and financial support helped transform our Portland Art Museum into a center for regional art works. The generosity of Harold and Arlene can be found throughout Oregon in places such as the Oregon Zoo, a special favorite of my children, Lewis and Clark College, the Mittleman Jewish Community Center, the Oregon Symphony, the Oregon Ballet, and the Portland Opera. A centerpiece of Oregon's art community is the beautiful Arlene Schnitzer Concert Hall in our downtown Portland community. It is affectionately known as ``the Schnitz.'' Harold Schnitzer was a humble man, and he came from humble roots. As a boy, he earned 25 cents a week polishing metal in his father's Portland scrap yard. From there it was on to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology for a degree in metallurgy, and then he went on to a career in real estate. Certainly, our colleagues from the bay area of California know who Harold Schnitzer was because with great pride he restored the historic Claremont Hotel Club and Spa in Berkeley to its former glory. In true Harold Schnitzer fashion, when he sold the hotel in 1998 the proceeds provided the funding for two family charitable foundations. We have lost a man, but, fortunately, we have not lost his vision and his generosity. His wife Arlene will continue to stand for those kinds of good works in our home State, and their son Jordan, a successful businessman in his own right who shares his parents' passion for philanthropy, continues every single day to look for opportunities to serve our home State. You can look no further than the Jordan Schnitzer Museum of Art in Eugene and downtown Portland's Simon and Helen Director Park, named for his maternal grandparents. What I liked most about Harold Schnitzer was his very wry sense of humor and particular knack for summarizing the events of our time. I remember often when I would see him after a particularly spirited discussion in the Senate. Harold had a great interest in politics and was a devout consumer of all the Sunday morning talk shows. After a particularly volcanic debate in Washington, DC, about some issue where it seemed nothing could get resolved, I would go home and be out and about, perhaps at the grocery store in Portland, and I would see Harold. He would tug on my elbow and say: I have been watching what is going on in Washington, DC, Ron. Got things pretty much worked out back there, do you? He would kind of chuckle and sort of express perfectly his sense of the irony of the challenges we have in Washington, DC. He knew somehow we would always get through them. Whenever I was around Harold, I got a sense that he really captured some of the irony of what goes on in Washington, DC, very well. He brought that same kind of approach and that light touch and combination of humor and irony to so much of what he did. In my view, Harold Schnitzer represented what was good in humanity. His legacy of good works is going to go forward. But for all those who didn't know him personally, didn't know him like I had the chance to, I wanted to take just a few minutes to tell the Senate and our country that Harold Schnitzer was a very special man. In my view, he was what I call a vintage Oregonian--somebody who got up every day and tried to make our State and country a better place. He will be greatly missed. With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce a bill that will address the cumbersome and time consuming process under existing law within the Bureau of Indian Affairs. This piece of legislation will streamline the land acquisition process for the Confederated Tribe of Siletz Indians. The current process for taking land into trust is not working, and I believe there are changes that need to be revived in the existing process. I am pleased to be joined by Senator Merkley in this effort. The original Siletz Coastal Treaty Reservation, established by the Executive Order on November 9, 1955 was diminished and then eliminated by the Federal Government's allotment and termination policies. Tribal members and tribal government have worked to rebuild the Siletz community since the Western Oregon Termination Act of August 1954 stripped the Siletz people of Federal tribal recognition, and since then the tribe has been struggling to rebuild its land base. This legislation would work to facilitate the tribe's land into trust process within the original Siletz coast reservation to overcome the chronic Bureau of Indian Affairs, BIA, delay in processing applications. Instead of having two processes to bring each piece of former reservation land back into the reservation after purchase, one to bring the land into trust, and another, to make it reservation land, allows the tribe to combine the process. In this case, because the original reservation was disassembled, the tribe terminated and provided a very small land base upon restoration, virtually every tract of land the tribe seeks to place into trust today is considered by BIA pursuant to ``off reservation'' procedures. ``Off reservation'' requests would mean that the ``. . . secretary gives greater scrutiny to the tribe's justification of anticipated benefits . . .'' By applying the on-reservation fee-to-trust criteria for lands within the Siletz Tribe's original reservation, this legislation allows the Tribe to take land into trust that will ultimately provide for vital tribal programs such as housing, government administration, and jobs-- for both tribal and county residents. In addition, the bill emphasizes the importance and the intent of the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934--which allows the Secretary of Interior, in his or her discretion, to take land into trust for the benefit of an Indian tribe or of individual Indians. Essentially, reversing the loss of tribal lands and restoring some of the Tribe's original land base by allowing the Tribe to take land into trust under the same provisions as other Indian tribes within their reservations. This bill underscores the importance of economic stability and self- determination for the confederated tribe of Siletz Indians and its members. Oregon Tribal communities suffer some of the greatest hurdles, whether it is health care, education, or crime on reservations, this bill would alleviate much of the cost and much needed resources associated with the bureaucratic hoops the tribe has had to jump through for years--which mean a significant savings of time and resources. As a result of the great working relationships, the Siletz Tribe has approached all six involved counties, and obtained their support. This legislation establishes and confirms a positive and beneficial partnership between the Federal Government, Siletz Tribe and local counties Lincoln, Lane, Tillamook, Yamhill, Benton, and Douglas. That is why I am introducing--the process has not sped up and we recognize the need for more action. It's always great to see Tribes and local counties work together to come up with proactive, inventive solutions for their communities to tackle challenging economic conditions. I want to express my thanks to all the citizens and community and tribal leaders who have worked to build their communities. They represent the pioneering spirit and vision that defines my state.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce a bill that will address the cumbersome and time consuming process under existing law within the Bureau of Indian Affairs. This piece of legislation will streamline the land acquisition process for the Confederated Tribe of Siletz Indians. The current process for taking land into trust is not working, and I believe there are changes that need to be revived in the existing process. I am pleased to be joined by Senator Merkley in this effort. The original Siletz Coastal Treaty Reservation, established by the Executive Order on November 9, 1955 was diminished and then eliminated by the Federal Government's allotment and termination policies. Tribal members and tribal government have worked to rebuild the Siletz community since the Western Oregon Termination Act of August 1954 stripped the Siletz people of Federal tribal recognition, and since then the tribe has been struggling to rebuild its land base. This legislation would work to facilitate the tribe's land into trust process within the original Siletz coast reservation to overcome the chronic Bureau of Indian Affairs, BIA, delay in processing applications. Instead of having two processes to bring each piece of former reservation land back into the reservation after purchase, one to bring the land into trust, and another, to make it reservation land, allows the tribe to combine the process. In this case, because the original reservation was disassembled, the tribe terminated and provided a very small land base upon restoration, virtually every tract of land the tribe seeks to place into trust today is considered by BIA pursuant to ``off reservation'' procedures. ``Off reservation'' requests would mean that the ``. . . secretary gives greater scrutiny to the tribe's justification of anticipated benefits . . .'' By applying the on-reservation fee-to-trust criteria for lands within the Siletz Tribe's original reservation, this legislation allows the Tribe to take land into trust that will ultimately provide for vital tribal programs such as housing, government administration, and jobs-- for both tribal and county residents. In addition, the bill emphasizes the importance and the intent of the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934--which allows the Secretary of Interior, in his or her discretion, to take land into trust for the benefit of an Indian tribe or of individual Indians. Essentially, reversing the loss of tribal lands and restoring some of the Tribe's original land base by allowing the Tribe to take land into trust under the same provisions as other Indian tribes within their reservations. This bill underscores the importance of economic stability and self- determination for the confederated tribe of Siletz Indians and its members. Oregon Tribal communities suffer some of the greatest hurdles, whether it is health care, education, or crime on reservations, this bill would alleviate much of the cost and much needed resources associated with the bureaucratic hoops the tribe has had to jump through for years--which mean a significant savings of time and resources. As a result of the great working relationships, the Siletz Tribe has approached all six involved counties, and obtained their support. This legislation establishes and confirms a positive and beneficial partnership between the Federal Government, Siletz Tribe and local counties Lincoln, Lane, Tillamook, Yamhill, Benton, and Douglas. That is why I am introducing--the process has not sped up and we recognize the need for more action. It's always great to see Tribes and local counties work together to come up with proactive, inventive solutions for their communities to tackle challenging economic conditions. I want to express my thanks to all the citizens and community and tribal leaders who have worked to build their communities. They represent the pioneering spirit and vision that defines my state.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize a man who deserves his own branch on the tree of Oregon politics. Former Congressman Robert B. Duncan, died Friday in Portland at the age of 90. He will long be remembered for what he achieved in reviving the Oregon Democratic Party in the years after World War II and being elected to represent two of Oregon's congressional districts during the 1960s and 1970s where he championed such great causes as civil rights and the war on poverty. He will also be remembered as someone who bravely took on two of Oregon's iconic figures. Bob Duncan ran unsuccessfully for the U.S. Senate three times, narrowly losing to names that are familiar to everyone in this room--Wayne Morse and Mark Hatfield. On a personal note, I might also add that Bob Duncan was the incumbent and my opponent in the 1980 primary race for Oregon's 3rd Congressional District. When I won that race I was afraid that I had made an enemy for life out of someone who was revered in State Democratic circles. I couldn't have been more wrong. He reached out to me and became both a friend and a supporter. Throughout his life, Bob Duncan was a major force in Oregon politics, shaping the state through his various roles as speaker of the Oregon House to influential member of the House appropriations subcommittee on transportation where he played a key role in bringing light rail to the streets of Portland. His public life ended in 1987 when he stepped down as chairman of the Northwest Power Planning Council. Bob's service in Congress covered a pivotal time in American politics the war in Vietnam. In 1966, at the urging of President Lyndon Johnson, Bob gave up his congressional seat from southern Oregon to run for the Senate against then-Governor Mark Hatfield. It was a nationally watched race pitting Duncan, a proponent of the war, against Hatfield, one of the Nation's earliest opponents of the United States' Vietnam policy. Two years later, Bob lost by only about 10,000 votes when he ran against Wayne Morse in the Democratic primary for Oregon's other Senate seat. Morse eventually lost to Republican Bob Packwood. In 1972, he lost again to Morse in a Democratic primary for the U.S. Senate. Never one to remain idle, Duncan having moved to Portland, won an open congressional seat in 1974, making him the only person in Oregon history to represent U.S. House districts in different parts of the State. But Bob Duncan's life should not be defined by races won and lost. He was a tireless advocate for civil liberties, civil rights and eliminating the scourge of poverty in America. His friends and you can count me among them remember him as tenacious and hard working with a brilliant legal mind. I will always remember him as a larger-than-life figure who loved telling stories and never let politics getting in the way of doing what he felt was right. Despite running a hard-fought race against each other, Duncan and Mark Hatfield became close friends and working partners. Thanks to Hatfield's efforts, a government building in downtown Portland now bears Duncan's name. Please join me in extending my condolences to his wife Kathryn and his children. All of Oregon shares in their loss.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, on April 14, the Government of France will present the National Order of the Legion of Honor to Edgar Peara one of Oregon's more modest heroes. The Ordre national de la Legion d'honneur was established by Napoleon Bonaparte in 1802 as a way of recognizing exceptional merit regardless of rank, class, or privilege. The Order remains the highest decoration in France and is being bestowed upon Edgar for his service in that country during World War II. Already highly decorated by the United States for bravery and valor, Edgar's story is indeed remarkable and worthy of high praise. After the bombing of Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, Edgar immediately volunteered for the military. At first he was told he would be more valuable to the Nation if he returned to his engineer studies, but the call to action was too strong. By June 1942 he received a commission in the U.S. Army and was assigned as an officer in the 531 Amphibious Combat Regiment of the 1st Engineer Amphibious Combat Brigade. His unit specialized in supporting large amphibious invasions, clearing the way for the infantry and keeping the Army on the move. By November 1942, Edgar's outfit landed in Arzew, Algeria, where Edgar, determined to keep the situation as calm as possible, went from house to house telling anxious Algerians unfamiliar with war or Americans that ``we come in peace. We are not here to harm anyone. We simply want you to surrender any weapons so that all armed resistance ceases.'' He said later that ``No one gave us any trouble and we collected so many arms we could hardly carry them all.'' This action set the tone for Edgar's entire war experience and his later life. As he prepared for the invasion of Italy, Edgar made a conscious effort to look for, and be grateful for, whatever there was to be appreciated that day, whether it was food, a dry place to sleep, reasonable weather, the friendships of comrades, and being well and safe. As Edgar put it, ``That change in attitude helped make me a happier person, for I stopped thinking that my contentment had to lie in the future when the war was over.'' After participating in the invasions of Sicily and mainland Italy, Edgar was moved to the southwest coast of England in order to help ready allied forces for D-day. He landed at Utah Beach on the upper French coast on June 6, 1944. Early that morning he noticed a battalion medical aid station was under intense fire. Recognizing the danger to those helpless soldiers, he scrambled to find a more protected area. He came across an abandoned German concrete underground command post. Dodging bullets and shells, he ran back to help move the wounded to safety. Edgar would later be part of the invasion of Okinawa, Japan, making him one of the few veterans to serve in Africa, Europe, and the Pacific. Taking what he learned from his experiences in war, Edgar dedicated himself to a life of internal peace and became a staunch advocate of greater peace for all humanity. He used his GI Bill to train for ordination as a Christian Science practitioner. During the Korean war, Edgar served as a Christian Science chaplain at the U.S. Naval Training Center, Great Lakes, IL. After this duty he went on to become a Unitarian Universalist minister. Edgar has worked diligently to help others find the same peace he discovered in his own heart and to help all mankind achieve greater peace between neighbors and nations. As an Oregonian, I could not be more proud of Edgar, his wonderful story, and his life's work. He truly is a hero and embodies the best of our State. As our Nation continues to struggle in conflicts overseas, Edgar serves as a testament to the belief that sometime restraint is as powerful as force in times of war. I am very appreciative of Edgar's selfless service.The people of France are thanking him today with this award. Oregon thanks him for continuing to make us proud.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. I thank the Chair for making this very clear; that repealing free choice vouchers--the opportunity to come up with a marketplace-oriented approach for people in a health care no man's land--in this spending bill is clearly legislating on an appropriations bill and that is not the way the Senate traditionally does business. If this provision were brought up in the Senate, we now know it would be ruled out of order. It would be ruled out of order because in the Senate we simply do not legislate on appropriations bills. The Senate doesn't legislate on appropriations bills for a simple reason. Every Senator knows it would be open season for the special interest lobbyists all over this town. The administration and this body took a stand earlier this year against earmarking--something the Chair is very much aware of--and I wish to quote from the President's State of the Union Address. The President said: The American people deserve to know that special interests aren't larding up legislation with pet projects. Both parties in Congress should know this: If a bill comes to my desk with earmarks inside it, I will veto it. Madam President, I wish to have somebody explain the difference between letting a lobbyist slip an earmark into an appropriations bill and slipping legislative language into an appropriations bill that benefits a whole array of special interest lobbyists. It sure seems to have the same effect to me. I am not certain who proposed eliminating free choice vouchers in this appropriations deal. Maybe a lobbyist asked for it or maybe some staffer with special interest sympathies saw an opportunity to send the lobbyist what one lobbyist called today ``an early Easter gift.'' But either way, I know with 100 percent certainty this decision was not made with the public interest in mind. The American people are not the ones who benefit from eliminating free choice vouchers. The American people like the idea of being able to have choices for their health care--choices, I would point out, that are much like the ones we have as Members of Congress. The fact is this is one provision in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act that combined the thinking of colleagues on both sides of the aisle--Democrats who wanted to expand coverage and Republicans who have an interest in choice and competition. This was the one provision that provided a concrete path to holding down health care costs, and it has now been gutted by the special interests. Some special interests are arguing that free choice vouchers would in some way harm employer-based health coverage. What we know for certain is that for the group of people who could access a free choice voucher, the employer-based health system is dysfunctional. It is dysfunctional for them. The group of people who are covered by free choice vouchers-- folks who aren't eligible for the exchanges and folks who aren't eligible for subsidies--now have only two choices: coverage that is completely unavailable or coverage that is completely unaffordable. The chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, at the time free choice vouchers was accepted, specifically talked about how this filled a gap in the bill. And now, with it gone, more than 300,000 Americans aren't going to have a path to affordable, good quality coverage. Free choice vouchers were needed at the time we worked on the affordable care act and they are even more necessary today. For example, the Kaiser Family Foundation, in their most recent analysis, has demonstrated how consistently, again and again, more health care costs are being shifted onto the backs of American workers. In their most recent analysis, they found that employee health expenses in the last year have gone up 14 percent, and the employee was eating almost all of that. Almost all of it was being shifted onto the backs of the workers. This was important today--it was important when we moved originally to enact the legislation. It is even more important today. The fact is, these individuals are only looking for another path because the system does not work for them. If it worked for them, we would not even have an issue. But as the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee pointed out, this is a gap in the system, a gap that, had we been able to sustain free choice vouchers and stop the lobbyists from stripping them out, we would have had a way to ensure that hundreds and hundreds of thousands of hard-working Americans--these are folks who work at jobs-- would still be able to go to sleep at night knowing they had decent, good-quality, affordable coverage for themselves and their families. The Senate does not legislate on appropriations bills because, as the President said so appropriately, we should be working to rebuild people's faith in the institution of government. We do not slip legislative language into these kinds of bills that benefits a few special interest groups at the expense of hundreds of thousands of Americans. This is not the way we do business. Throughout 2009, I promised my constituents that I would not support health care reforms unless they were real reforms. This legislation lets special interest groups take real reform out of the health care law. It seems to me that, all over this town, the special interest groups are looking at the bill and they are saying now it is going to be possible, if we can just find, behind closed doors, some allies to take away real cost containment, real opportunities for good-quality, affordable coverage for people. This legislation takes real reform out of the health care law. Because I keep my promises, I will not support it. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I rise to make a parliamentary inquiry. The Senate will soon receive from the House legislation to fund the Federal Government for the rest of this year--H.R. 1473. Normally, spending bills such as this one go through the Appropriations Committee. Despite the fact that this spending bill the Senate will soon take up covers funding for the entire Federal Government, including all appropriations bills for the year, it was never even considered by the House or Senate Appropriations Committees. Snuck into this massive spending bill are legislative provisions that typically are not allowed by Senate rules to be included in the appropriations process. The Senate has a rule--rule XVI--that prohibits Senate legislative amendments to an appropriations bill. Despite this Senate rule, the spending bill the Senate will consider today includes provisions that are clearly legislative in nature. Specifically, I am referring to section 1858 of the spending bill which repeals free choice vouchers from the affordable care act that became law last year. There should be no doubt that repealing a law or part of a law is legislating. In this case, section 1858 repeals part of the Internal Revenue Code. Amending the Internal Revenue Code is general legislation, not the appropriation of funds. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office has actually determined that free choice vouchers involve no appropriation of funds whatsoever. Madam President, my parliamentary inquiry is whether repealing free choice vouchers in the spending bill the Senate will soon consider is legislating on an appropriations bill.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, in one cruel swoop late last week, more than 300,000 Americans lost the opportunity to buy affordable health insurance for years to come. Specifically, I am talking about the removal behind closed doors by budget negotiators of the free choice voucher provision that would have been a lifeline to hundreds of thousands of low-income Americans. One could say: Senator Wyden, everybody has to give a little during tough times. Why is this different? The difference is that hundreds of thousands of Americans without health care options, in a process that doesn't even have any direct cost to the Federal budget, are being asked to give up a guarantee of coverage just a year after passage of the Affordable Care Act. They are going to be forced to make a Hobson's choice between unaffordable insurance and going without health care, directly contradicting the theoretical underpinnings of the Affordable Care Act. Under that provision, those whose income falls below 400 percent of the poverty line and whose employer-sponsored health insurance premiums are between 8 and just under 10 percent would be exempt from having to purchase health coverage. Unfortunately, now that they do not have access to the exchanges, they will also not qualify for government assistance to insurance. The provision leaves hundreds of thousands of Americans who need health care as a lifeline out in the cold. With free choice, however, folks who fell into this hole and couldn't afford the plan they were offered at work could use their employer's contribution. They could have gotten a voucher to choose a more appropriate affordable plan in the exchange. The amount of the voucher would be set at the same percentage that employers pay today: 70 percent of the cost of a typical plan. The amount would be fixed, giving employers certainty in the cost of doing business. For these families, it could mean the difference between being able to buy a health plan they could afford or going without coverage. If they found a plan in the exchange that's cheaper that was cheaper than the voucher amount, but gave them everything they needed, they could have pocketed the difference in cost. This gives that family an incentive to shop for lower cost coverage and helps hold down everyone's health care costs. This kind of concept is not only good for the employee, it is good for our businesses, particularly the small businesses that so strongly back this provision. When the impact of free choice was proposed during the health reform debate, the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that more than 300,000 families could benefit from this new approach to choice and competition. That was then. Since passage of the health care reform law, the need for free choice vouchers is greater than ever. The Kaiser Family Foundation, in their recent analysis, found that employers, even since the law, are shifting more of the health care cost on to the backs of the workers. In that analysis, The Kaiser Family Foundation reported that the typical increase for family coverage went up three percent on average last year, but the cost for the typical worker went up 14 percent. The employer was paying virtually none of that increase. The worker was eating almost all of it because costs were being shifted from employers on to the backs of the workers. So if anything, even more people would likely need free choice vouchers, and would have been eligible to use them, than was originally envisioned when we passed the law. I am of the view that it is not that businesses don't want to provide affordable benefits to workers. It is just making less and less sense to do so given the way the current system operates. Incentives would not change in 2014, leaving an increasing number of families with a choice between the unaffordable and the unavailable. Up until late last week, in the dark of night, those families had a choice. They had a choice, a third path. The two that I mentioned, unaffordable and unavailable, were not very appealing, and free choice vouchers would have created a third option that would have worked for those families. They would have had a chance to take their pretax dollars provided by their employer to the free market exchange and decide for themselves which plans they could afford that provide the benefits they need. Free choice is good for workers, it is good for business, it is good for our country's bottom line; it offers a way to rein in higher health care costs by putting purchasing power back into the hands of the consumer. Once people know they are paying for their health coverage and can shop for a plan that answers their specific needs, costs will come down. We hear often colleagues on both sides of the aisle talk about choice and competition and market forces. What this did was provide a chance for both sides to take principles they hold dear, expanding coverage with a market based approach for workers who are hurting, and say: Free choice vouchers can do that. The arguments against free choice didn't start with Democrats or Republicans. The arguments started with the interest groups, the lobbies, the special interests that have a vested stake in holding their employees captive and locking them into this incredibly inefficient status quo. This provision has no budget impact in the fiscal year. Three hundred thousand low-income Americans are being hurt in this budget bill for something that spends no money in the upcoming year; 300,000 Americans with no acceptable alternative to make sure that when they go to bed at night with their families they can take care of an illness or a medical expense that comes up in the morning. I don't think this had to be. Clearly, if we had had the opportunity in an open forum to address this, there would have been a different result because that is how it got into the law in the first place. I want to make sure colleagues know we will have to be back here to get some relief for the 300,000 Americans we put out in the cold as a result of that particular provision. I hope, once again, we can do it in a fashion that brings Democrats and Republicans together the way free choice vouchers and the principles it represents did in the first place. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, this month the Oregon Air National Guard is celebrating its 70th anniversary. ``We've got people, we've got a place, and we're ready!'' These were the historic words written in a request by Major G. Robert Dodson, an Oregonian assigned to organize and command the first squadron of Oregon National Guard Air Corps. Ready as Major Dodson was, it hadn't happened quickly or easily. It took several years to get the squadron assembled. General George A. White, Oregon's Adjutant General, requested a squadron as early as August 1939, but didn't receive official authorization to form the squadron from the National Guard Bureau until August 1, 1940. On April 18, 1941, Major Dodson assembled a group of 117 volunteers to form the 123rd Observation Squadron. Less than 8 months later, these Airmen were the first to conduct maritime surveillance of the continental United States following the December 7, 1941, attack on Pearl Harbor. For the most part, their job was to conduct surveillance on the enemy. However, they did on at least one occasion ignore their orders to ``stick to taking pictures'' and dropped ordnance instead. It was not without good reason. It seems that the Japanese they targeted had sunk the ship carrying the unit's beer rations. Their improvised attack wasn't appreciated by their commander, but even back then getting between Oregonians and their beer didn't go unpunished. After the war, the Air National Guard was established as a separate component of the U.S. Air Force. Since being formally designated the Oregon Air National Guard, our State's aviators have played a vital role in Korea, the cold war, and in military operations throughout the world since the tragic events of 9/11. Seventy years and 15 different aircraft models since their inception, the number of citizen-airmen has increased more than twentyfold to 2,000. Today, our Nation relies on F-15s from the Oregon Air National Guard to perform the air sovereignty mission for the entire Pacific Northwest. Our twin-engine, air superiority fighter jets--Eagles--fly upwards of Mach 2 to intercept any threat along our Nation's border. Additionally, the Oregon Air National Guard trains new Air Force pilots at Kingsley Field in Klamath Falls. They are not only there for our Nation in times of war, but they answer the call of the Governor during natural disasters. When flooding threatened hundreds of lives in Vernonia, OR, in 2007 it was the Oregon Air National Guard's 125th Special Tactics Squadron that was first on the scene. They saved hundreds of people from the rising water. Today's Oregon Air National Guard units include the 142nd Fighter Wing, 125th Special Tactics Squadron and 123rd Weather Flight in Portland, the 173rd Fighter Wing and 270th Air Traffic Control Squadron in Klamath Falls, Joint Force Headquarter in Salem, and the 116th Air Control Squadron in Warrenton. As an Oregonian and as their Senator, I could not be more proud of today's Oregon Air National Guard and its rich heritage. It is an honor to serve these heroes; active, retired, and those that have given their lives. I am very appreciative of their 70 years of selfless service and sacrifice. The people of Oregon thank every member of this pillar of freedom.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today, along with my colleagues Senators Sessions, McCaskill, Thune, Boxer, and Graham, I am introducing the Crime Victim Restitution and Court Fee Intercept Act. This bipartisan bill would help crime victims and state courts recover the restitution and fees that are owed to them. This bill would accomplish this worthy goal by intercepting tax refunds of deadbeat debtors who've failed to pay restitution or court fees. If enacted, this bill would essentially allow state courts to cross-reference outstanding debts with the IRS and use existing procedures to withhold tax refunds in order to satisfy past due debts. This bill would not only deliver justice to crime victims who are owed restitution, but would also provide much-needed resources to help keep court rooms open and court programs operating. At a time when our State and local governments are struggling to find funding for vital programs--including keeping courthouse doors open--unpaid court fees represent an important source of revenue that should be captured. This bill would help close budget gaps and provide additional revenue without raising taxes or imposing any new costs or burdens. In fact, participation in the program would be optional for States, but I expect most States to participate and to benefit greatly from this bill. This bill would operate the same way as the very successful child support debt collection system. The bill will allow states to share information on outstanding restitution owed and court debts with the IRS, which would then be required to intercept any Federal tax refunds of debtors and send that money to the victim or court owed that debt. It has been estimated by the National Center for State Courts that outstanding court debts across the country total approximately $15 billion. In my home state of Oregon alone, the outstanding restitution and court fee debt amount is $987 million. Only a portion of outstanding debts are owed by individuals who will receive Federal tax refunds, so a portion of court debts would not be collected immediately. Nonetheless, the state of Oregon estimates that passage of this bill would allow the State to collect $30 million per year. Without this straight-forward and efficient mechanism, the collection of victim restitution and court debts is a costly and time-consuming process. Enactment of this bill would reduce the fiscal cost and administrative burden that victims and courts bear in attempting to collect those debts. Again, in the midst of a challenging fiscal crisis, it only makes common sense to collect revenues that are already owed--through an efficient and convenient method. Because this bill would benefit both the court system, and those who rely upon it, the Crime Victim Restitution and Court Fee Intercept Act is endorsed by a broad array of court, government, law enforcement, and crime victims' organizations. I would like to especially recognize the National Center for State Courts and the American Bar Association for their support in getting this bill introduced. The bill is also supported by the Conference of Chief Justices, the Conference of State Court Administrators, the National Association for Court Managers, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the National Association of Counties, the Government Finance Officers Association, the National District Attorneys Association, the American Probation and Parole Association, the National Crime Law Institute, the National Center for Victims of Crime, the National Organization for Victim Assistance, the National Association of Crime Victim Compensation Boards, the National Association of VOCA Assistance Administrators, the National Network to End Domestic Violence, the National Alliance to End Sexual Violence, the National Organization of Parents of Murdered Children Inc., and Mothers Against Drunk Driving. I urge all colleagues to support this bipartisan legislation and I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, part of my job as a Senator from a beautiful State like Oregon is to keep that beauty protected for the next generation of Oregonians. Today it is my pleasure to reintroduce three bills to better protect three of Oregon's special natural resources, S. 764, 765, and 766. I have introduced all of these bills before, one of these in both of the last two Congresses. The Oregon Caves Revitalization Act of 2011 was first introduced in 2008, and again in the last Congress. It progressed out of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee in the last Congress but unfortunately there wasn't an opportunity to vote on it on the Senate Floor. The Devil's Staircase Wilderness Act of 2011 also moved out of the Committee but failed to get a vote in the full Senate. The Chetco River Protection Act of 2011 was also introduced last session, but there was not enough time to get a hearing before the Senate adjourned. I am pleased to again introduce these bills with my colleague from Oregon, Senator Merkley. My colleague in the House of Representatives, Representative DeFazio, will also be introducing companion legislation today. The first bill I am introducing, the Oregon Caves Revitalization Act of 2011, will expand the boundary of the National Park Service land to create the Oregon Caves National Monument and Preserve. Under this bill, the stunning majesty of both the underground and the aboveground treasures found at this National Monument site will be protected for future generations. Established by a Presidential Proclamation in 1909, the Oregon Caves National Monument is a 480-acre natural wonder located in the botanically-rich Siskiyou Mountains. It was originally set aside because of its unusual scientific interest and importance. Oregon Caves has a unique geologic history and is particularly known as the longest marble cave open to the public west of the Continental Divide. A perennial stream, the ``River Styx''--an underground portion of Cave Creek--flows through part of the cave and is one of the dynamic natural forces at work in the National Monument. The cave ecosystem provides habitat for numerous plants and animals, including some state- sensitive species such as Townsend's big-eared bats and several cave-adapted species of arthropods found only in only one place on Earth: the Oregon Caves. The caves possess a significant collection of Pleistocene aged fossils, including jaguar and grizzly bear. In 1995, grizzly bear bones found in the cave were estimated to be at least 50,000 years old, the oldest known from either North or South America. Today, I am proposing legislation that will enhance the protection for treasures such as these found within the Oregon Caves National Monument and that will increase public recreation opportunities by adding surrounding lands to the National Park Service site. My bill would expand the park site by 4,070 acres to include the entire Cave Creek Watershed, and transfer management of the land from the United States Forest Service to the National Park Service. The newly acquired lands will be designated as a Preserve so that hunters can still use them. In addition, my legislation would designate at least 9.6 miles of rivers and tributaries as Wild, Scenic, or Recreational, under the federal Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, including the first subterranean Wild and Scenic River, the River Styx. This bill would also authorize the retirement of existing grazing allotments. When the Oregon Caves National Monument was established in 1909, the focus was on the unique subsurface resources, and the small rectangular boundary was thought to be adequate to protect the cave. Through the years, however, scientific research and technology have provided new information about the cave's ecology, and the impacts from the surface environment and the related hydrological processes. The current 480- acre boundary simply can't adequately protect this cave system. The National Park Service has formally proposed a boundary modification numerous times, first in 1939, again in 1949, and most recently in 2000. Today, I am happy to again propose legislation to enact that boundary adjustment into law. The Oregon Caves National Monument makes a unique contribution to Southern Oregon's economy and to the national heritage. The Monument receives over 80,000 visitors annually and a larger Monument boundary will help showcase more fully the recreational opportunities on the above-ground lands within the proposed Monument boundary. The Monument's above-ground lands in the Siskiyou Mountains possess a beauty and diversity that is unique in America, and indeed the world. The Oregon Caves National Monument's approximately 500 plants, 5,000 animals, 2,000 fungi, and over a million bacteria per acre that make the spot have one of the highest concentrations of biological diversity anywhere. Expanding the Monument's boundary will also preserve the caves' resources by protecting the water that enters the cave. By granting the National Park Service the ability to safeguard these resources, and by providing for a voluntary donation of grazing permits, my legislation will be able to better protect these resources. Over the decades, the number of allowed livestock has diminished, but the livestock still has an impact on the drinking water supply and the water quality of this natural gem. The current grazing permitee, Phil Krouse's family, has had the Big Grayback Grazing Allotment, 19,703 acre, since 1937. Mr. Krouse has publicly stated that he would look favorably upon retirement with private compensation for his allotment, which my legislation will allow to proceed. The second bill I am introducing is the Devil's Staircase Wilderness Act of 2011, which designates approximately 30,540 acres surrounding the Wasson Creek area as Wilderness. Devil's Staircase personifies what Wilderness in Oregon is all about. It is rugged, wild, pristine and remote. So rugged, in fact, that land managers have repeatedly withdrawn this landslide-prone forest from all timbering activity and intrepid hikers must follow elk and deer trails and keep a sharp eye on a compass. The proposed Devil's Staircase Wilderness is the finest old- growth forest remaining in Oregon's Coast Range, boasting huge Douglas- fir, cedar and hemlock and a wealth of threatened and endangered species. Wildlife include threatened marbled murrelets and the highest density of Northern Spotted Owls in the coastal mountains. My proposal would not only protect the forests surrounding Wasson Creek but would also designate approximately 4.5 miles of Franklin Creek and approximately 10.1 miles of Wasson Creek as Wild and Scenic Rivers. Franklin Creek, a critically important tributary to the Umpqua River, is one of the best examples of pristine salmon habitat left in Oregon. Together with Wasson Creek, these two streams in the Devil's Staircase area deserve Wild and Scenic River designation by Congress. The ecological significance of this treasure is apparent. The land is protected as a Late-Successional Reserve by the Northwest Forest Plan, as critical habitat for the northern spotted owl, and as an Area of Critical Environmental Concern by the Bureau of Land Management. Preserving these majestic forests as Wilderness for their wildlife and spectacular scenery matches the goals of the existing land management plans. I look forward to protecting this gem for future generations. For over a decade, I've advocated for protections for the Chetco and other threatened waterways in Southwest Oregon. I'm reintroducing a third piece of legislation today that would continue that effort. The Chetco River Protection Act of 2011 would withdraw about three miles of the Chetco River from mineral entry, while upgrading the designations for some portions. This river is under immediate threat from out-of-state suction dredge miners. The group American Rivers said last year that the Chetco was the seventh most endangered river in the country because of those threats. This is a river that is hugely important for salmon habitat and local sport fishing. The passage of this legislation would mean protecting that habitat, and promoting the continued success of the fishing industry throughout the West Coast. Withdrawing these portions of the river from future mineral entry will prevent future harmful mining claims and make sure that those claims that already exist are valid I am pleased the Obama administration has taken some steps to protect this area, but the passage of this legislation is needed to ensure long-term protection for this important river. Finally, I want to express my thanks to the conservation, recreation and business communities of Southern and Coastal Oregon, and Phil Krouse for his strong conservation ethic. All of them have worked diligently to protect these special places. I look forward to working with Senator Merkley, Representative DeFazio, and other colleagues and the bill's other supporters to keep up the fight for these unique places in Oregon and get these pieces of legislation to the President's desk for his signature.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today, along with my colleagues Senators Sessions, McCaskill, Thune, Boxer, and Graham, I am introducing the Crime Victim Restitution and Court Fee Intercept Act. This bipartisan bill would help crime victims and state courts recover the restitution and fees that are owed to them. This bill would accomplish this worthy goal by intercepting tax refunds of deadbeat debtors who've failed to pay restitution or court fees. If enacted, this bill would essentially allow state courts to cross-reference outstanding debts with the IRS and use existing procedures to withhold tax refunds in order to satisfy past due debts. This bill would not only deliver justice to crime victims who are owed restitution, but would also provide much-needed resources to help keep court rooms open and court programs operating. At a time when our State and local governments are struggling to find funding for vital programs--including keeping courthouse doors open--unpaid court fees represent an important source of revenue that should be captured. This bill would help close budget gaps and provide additional revenue without raising taxes or imposing any new costs or burdens. In fact, participation in the program would be optional for States, but I expect most States to participate and to benefit greatly from this bill. This bill would operate the same way as the very successful child support debt collection system. The bill will allow states to share information on outstanding restitution owed and court debts with the IRS, which would then be required to intercept any Federal tax refunds of debtors and send that money to the victim or court owed that debt. It has been estimated by the National Center for State Courts that outstanding court debts across the country total approximately $15 billion. In my home state of Oregon alone, the outstanding restitution and court fee debt amount is $987 million. Only a portion of outstanding debts are owed by individuals who will receive Federal tax refunds, so a portion of court debts would not be collected immediately. Nonetheless, the state of Oregon estimates that passage of this bill would allow the State to collect $30 million per year. Without this straight-forward and efficient mechanism, the collection of victim restitution and court debts is a costly and time-consuming process. Enactment of this bill would reduce the fiscal cost and administrative burden that victims and courts bear in attempting to collect those debts. Again, in the midst of a challenging fiscal crisis, it only makes common sense to collect revenues that are already owed--through an efficient and convenient method. Because this bill would benefit both the court system, and those who rely upon it, the Crime Victim Restitution and Court Fee Intercept Act is endorsed by a broad array of court, government, law enforcement, and crime victims' organizations. I would like to especially recognize the National Center for State Courts and the American Bar Association for their support in getting this bill introduced. The bill is also supported by the Conference of Chief Justices, the Conference of State Court Administrators, the National Association for Court Managers, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the National Association of Counties, the Government Finance Officers Association, the National District Attorneys Association, the American Probation and Parole Association, the National Crime Law Institute, the National Center for Victims of Crime, the National Organization for Victim Assistance, the National Association of Crime Victim Compensation Boards, the National Association of VOCA Assistance Administrators, the National Network to End Domestic Violence, the National Alliance to End Sexual Violence, the National Organization of Parents of Murdered Children Inc., and Mothers Against Drunk Driving. I urge all colleagues to support this bipartisan legislation and I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, part of my job as a Senator from a beautiful State like Oregon is to keep that beauty protected for the next generation of Oregonians. Today it is my pleasure to reintroduce three bills to better protect three of Oregon's special natural resources, S. 764, 765, and 766. I have introduced all of these bills before, one of these in both of the last two Congresses. The Oregon Caves Revitalization Act of 2011 was first introduced in 2008, and again in the last Congress. It progressed out of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee in the last Congress but unfortunately there wasn't an opportunity to vote on it on the Senate Floor. The Devil's Staircase Wilderness Act of 2011 also moved out of the Committee but failed to get a vote in the full Senate. The Chetco River Protection Act of 2011 was also introduced last session, but there was not enough time to get a hearing before the Senate adjourned. I am pleased to again introduce these bills with my colleague from Oregon, Senator Merkley. My colleague in the House of Representatives, Representative DeFazio, will also be introducing companion legislation today. The first bill I am introducing, the Oregon Caves Revitalization Act of 2011, will expand the boundary of the National Park Service land to create the Oregon Caves National Monument and Preserve. Under this bill, the stunning majesty of both the underground and the aboveground treasures found at this National Monument site will be protected for future generations. Established by a Presidential Proclamation in 1909, the Oregon Caves National Monument is a 480-acre natural wonder located in the botanically-rich Siskiyou Mountains. It was originally set aside because of its unusual scientific interest and importance. Oregon Caves has a unique geologic history and is particularly known as the longest marble cave open to the public west of the Continental Divide. A perennial stream, the ``River Styx''--an underground portion of Cave Creek--flows through part of the cave and is one of the dynamic natural forces at work in the National Monument. The cave ecosystem provides habitat for numerous plants and animals, including some state- sensitive species such as Townsend's big-eared bats and several cave-adapted species of arthropods found only in only one place on Earth: the Oregon Caves. The caves possess a significant collection of Pleistocene aged fossils, including jaguar and grizzly bear. In 1995, grizzly bear bones found in the cave were estimated to be at least 50,000 years old, the oldest known from either North or South America. Today, I am proposing legislation that will enhance the protection for treasures such as these found within the Oregon Caves National Monument and that will increase public recreation opportunities by adding surrounding lands to the National Park Service site. My bill would expand the park site by 4,070 acres to include the entire Cave Creek Watershed, and transfer management of the land from the United States Forest Service to the National Park Service. The newly acquired lands will be designated as a Preserve so that hunters can still use them. In addition, my legislation would designate at least 9.6 miles of rivers and tributaries as Wild, Scenic, or Recreational, under the federal Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, including the first subterranean Wild and Scenic River, the River Styx. This bill would also authorize the retirement of existing grazing allotments. When the Oregon Caves National Monument was established in 1909, the focus was on the unique subsurface resources, and the small rectangular boundary was thought to be adequate to protect the cave. Through the years, however, scientific research and technology have provided new information about the cave's ecology, and the impacts from the surface environment and the related hydrological processes. The current 480- acre boundary simply can't adequately protect this cave system. The National Park Service has formally proposed a boundary modification numerous times, first in 1939, again in 1949, and most recently in 2000. Today, I am happy to again propose legislation to enact that boundary adjustment into law. The Oregon Caves National Monument makes a unique contribution to Southern Oregon's economy and to the national heritage. The Monument receives over 80,000 visitors annually and a larger Monument boundary will help showcase more fully the recreational opportunities on the above-ground lands within the proposed Monument boundary. The Monument's above-ground lands in the Siskiyou Mountains possess a beauty and diversity that is unique in America, and indeed the world. The Oregon Caves National Monument's approximately 500 plants, 5,000 animals, 2,000 fungi, and over a million bacteria per acre that make the spot have one of the highest concentrations of biological diversity anywhere. Expanding the Monument's boundary will also preserve the caves' resources by protecting the water that enters the cave. By granting the National Park Service the ability to safeguard these resources, and by providing for a voluntary donation of grazing permits, my legislation will be able to better protect these resources. Over the decades, the number of allowed livestock has diminished, but the livestock still has an impact on the drinking water supply and the water quality of this natural gem. The current grazing permitee, Phil Krouse's family, has had the Big Grayback Grazing Allotment, 19,703 acre, since 1937. Mr. Krouse has publicly stated that he would look favorably upon retirement with private compensation for his allotment, which my legislation will allow to proceed. The second bill I am introducing is the Devil's Staircase Wilderness Act of 2011, which designates approximately 30,540 acres surrounding the Wasson Creek area as Wilderness. Devil's Staircase personifies what Wilderness in Oregon is all about. It is rugged, wild, pristine and remote. So rugged, in fact, that land managers have repeatedly withdrawn this landslide-prone forest from all timbering activity and intrepid hikers must follow elk and deer trails and keep a sharp eye on a compass. The proposed Devil's Staircase Wilderness is the finest old- growth forest remaining in Oregon's Coast Range, boasting huge Douglas- fir, cedar and hemlock and a wealth of threatened and endangered species. Wildlife include threatened marbled murrelets and the highest density of Northern Spotted Owls in the coastal mountains. My proposal would not only protect the forests surrounding Wasson Creek but would also designate approximately 4.5 miles of Franklin Creek and approximately 10.1 miles of Wasson Creek as Wild and Scenic Rivers. Franklin Creek, a critically important tributary to the Umpqua River, is one of the best examples of pristine salmon habitat left in Oregon. Together with Wasson Creek, these two streams in the Devil's Staircase area deserve Wild and Scenic River designation by Congress. The ecological significance of this treasure is apparent. The land is protected as a Late-Successional Reserve by the Northwest Forest Plan, as critical habitat for the northern spotted owl, and as an Area of Critical Environmental Concern by the Bureau of Land Management. Preserving these majestic forests as Wilderness for their wildlife and spectacular scenery matches the goals of the existing land management plans. I look forward to protecting this gem for future generations. For over a decade, I've advocated for protections for the Chetco and other threatened waterways in Southwest Oregon. I'm reintroducing a third piece of legislation today that would continue that effort. The Chetco River Protection Act of 2011 would withdraw about three miles of the Chetco River from mineral entry, while upgrading the designations for some portions. This river is under immediate threat from out-of-state suction dredge miners. The group American Rivers said last year that the Chetco was the seventh most endangered river in the country because of those threats. This is a river that is hugely important for salmon habitat and local sport fishing. The passage of this legislation would mean protecting that habitat, and promoting the continued success of the fishing industry throughout the West Coast. Withdrawing these portions of the river from future mineral entry will prevent future harmful mining claims and make sure that those claims that already exist are valid I am pleased the Obama administration has taken some steps to protect this area, but the passage of this legislation is needed to ensure long-term protection for this important river. Finally, I want to express my thanks to the conservation, recreation and business communities of Southern and Coastal Oregon, and Phil Krouse for his strong conservation ethic. All of them have worked diligently to protect these special places. I look forward to working with Senator Merkley, Representative DeFazio, and other colleagues and the bill's other supporters to keep up the fight for these unique places in Oregon and get these pieces of legislation to the President's desk for his signature.