Ron Wyden

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, about the most red, white and blue, patriotic action our Nation could take is to develop a new energy policy that reduces our Nation's dependence on foreign oil. And the biggest source of our oil dependence is transportation--the cars, trucks and sport utility vehicles (SUVs) that our citizens drive every day. That's why I am pleased to be introducing a bill that will help citizens who want to do their part to reduce oil dependence by commuting to work by bicycle. I am joined in sponsoring the Bicycle Commuters Benefits Act of 2007 by Senators Snowe, Collins, Durbin, Menendez, Inouye, Enzi and Sanders. I know that many people in our country want to do something concrete about our Nation's dependence on oil and gas. As gas prices continue to climb again this spring, more and more people are going to be looking for actions that they can take to free themselves from this dependency. The bill I am introducing today gives Americans more incentive to give up the cars and trucks that they drive to and from work every day and get on their bicycles instead. According to recent Census reports, more than 500,000 people throughout the United States commute to work by bicycle. They are freeing themselves from sitting in traffic. They are saving energy and overcoming their dependence on oil and gas. They are getting exercise; avoiding obesity and helping us keep our air clean and safe to breathe. Yet, they are commuting by bicycle at their own expense. Their fellow employees who take mass transit to and from work have an incentive created in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century that enables their employers to pay for their bus or subway ride. And those who commute to work by car or truck can receive tax-free parking benefits provided by their employers. These incentives are great for mass transit commuters or those who drive to work. But they also create a financial disincentive for those riding their bikes to and from their jobs. The Bicycle Commuters Benefits Act of 2007 will eliminate this financial disincentive and level the commuting field for bicyclists. The bill extends the fringe benefits that employers can offer their employees for commuting by public transit, car or truck to those who ride their bicycles to and from their jobs. Our bill amends the tax code so that public and private employers can offer their employees a monthly benefit payment that will help them cover the costs of riding their bikes, instead of driving and parking their cars where they work. The bill also provides employers the flexibility to set their own level of benefit payment up to a specified amount. That way, employers and their employees can decide how much of an incentive they need to stop driving and start riding their bikes. Those who currently ride the bus and/or subway to work would also gain an extra incentive to ride their bikes. Employers can deduct the cost of their benefit payments from their taxable income. This reduces the taxes that they pay to the Federal Government. And, in turn, employees will receive anywhere from $40-$110 per month as a non-taxable benefit, to help them pay for the costs of riding their bikes. This is a fair and modest proposal that will reward employees who ride their bikes to and from their jobs. Our Senate bill is a companion bill to a bill being introduced by my fellow Oregonian, Congressman Earl Blumenauer. He has dozens of co- sponsors from both sides of the aisle and every part of the United States eager to offer bicycle commuters the same incentive that I want to offer to those who take mass transit or drive. In addition, our bill is supported by many regional and national bicycling organizations such as Bikes Belong, Cycle Oregon, the Bicycle Transportation Alliance, the League of American Bicyclists, the Washington Area Bicyclist Association, Transportation Alternatives and hundreds of Capitol Hill employees who commute by bike to work every day. When you look around our cities, the taxpayers have paid millions of dollars for bike trails in all of America's urban areas and major job markets. Now, bicycle commuters will have an extra incentive to make greater use of this public investment to commute to and from their jobs. I look forward to working with our colleagues to enact this legislation to reward citizens doing their part to put us on the road to oil independence by biking to work. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I offer this amendment with the distinguished vice chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. I thank him for the many hours he and his staff have put in, working with me on this amendment. The purpose of the legislation before the Senate today is straightforward: to apply what has been learned from one of the greatest tragedies in American life in order to better protect the American people in the days ahead. One of the tragic lessons of 9/11 is what we do not know can hurt us, and hurt us badly. Because of the outstanding work of the 9/11 Commission, extensive information about what went wrong has been made public. The national security community has learned from a number of its mistakes, and today is taking concrete steps to make sure what happened on September 11, 2001, does not happen again. There has been a variety of reports that have been issued, critical to our understanding of what happened that tragic day. The bipartisan 2002 Joint Congressional Inquiry, on which I was privileged to serve, is one example, as well as the Department of Justice's report on FBI accountability. There is one essential report that has remained classified. Nearly 2 years ago, the CIA inspector general submitted a report detailing CIA accountability in the runup to the 9/11 attacks. I am sure that some may and will consider a number of the inspector general's findings unsettling, perhaps embarrassing, but the report is of high quality and it is comprehensive. The CIA inspector general has provided this country with an important perspective on one of the defining moments in American history, and I believe the public has a right to know what went wrong at the CIA, so we can make sure those mistakes are not repeated. I have spent more than a year working on a bipartisan basis with our friend from Missouri, the previous chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Senator Roberts, to make an unclassified version of this report available to the public. I have repeatedly asked the intelligence community to redact any sensitive national security information in the report's executive summary so that it could be declassified. I have been joined in these efforts, in addition to the assistance Senator Bond has provided, by the current chairman, Senator Rockefeller. I have already mentioned the help of Chairman Roberts for some substantial length of time. Multiple CIA Directors, as well as the former Director of National Intelligence, regrettably have not been willing to cooperate. Why the leaders of the CIA have been so reluctant to cooperate is not clear to me. Neither former Director Goss nor Director Hayden nor Ambassador Negroponte have ever provided a valid reason for keeping the report, the entire report, classified. In fact, there is no good reason why the CIA cannot declassify this report. The executive summary is concise, and it contains little information about CIA sources and methods. It could be redacted and released quickly. That information is in the interests of the American people. The amendment, the bipartisan amendment we offer today, would require the Director of the CIA to declassify the executive summary of the inspector general's report on 9/11, removing only that information which must be redacted to protect this country's national security. The amendment requires the Director do this within 30 days. I think anyone who has read the report would agree that this is more than enough time. I am pleased that the bipartisan leadership of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Senator Rockefeller and Senator Bond, join me as cosponsors of the legislation. The American people have a right to know what is in this report. Some of the findings may be unpleasant, others may be a source of pride, but at the end of the day the American people have a right to know about how the Central Intelligence Agency performed at a critical moment in this country's history. We need that information made public so as to ensure that there is true accountability. September 11, 2001, is part of this country's history. To hide the truth from the American people is unacceptable. I urge the adoption of this amendment. I see my friend from Missouri and thank him again for his patience during the many hours our staffs have been working on a bipartisan basis. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up the amendment at this time.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the earlier unanimous consent request so I can offer the Wyden-Bond amendment at this time.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, it has been more than 200 years since Lewis and Clark first laid eyes on Mount Hood. Today, I propose, with Senator Smith, that the spectacular mountain, seen first by our pioneers, should be preserved for all time. The Lewis and Clark Mount Hood Wilderness Act of 2007, which we introduce today, is similar to the bill Senator Smith and I introduced in the last Congress. It does include several improvements that came about from comments and constructive suggestions from a variety of groups at home in Oregon. The legislation also includes input from the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. We appreciate their input and believe their views can help speed the bill's passage. In tribute to the great river-dependent journey of Lewis and Clark, our legislation adds nine free-flowing stretches of rivers to the National Wild and Scenic River System. This reflects the views of Oregonians, but, frankly, I hear it from folks in the Midwest, where the Presiding Officer lives, and from people from every nook and cranny in this country who have all come to treasure our spectacular mountain. This legislation contains a number of provisions of the original Mount Hood legislation I introduced in 2004. The bill protects the lower elevation forests surrounding Mount Hood and the Columbia River Gorge as Lewis and Clark saw them. These forests embody the natural beauty of our home State. They provide the clean water necessary for the survival of threatened steelhead, Coho, and Chinook salmon. They provide critical habitat and diverse ecosystems for elk, deer, lynx, and the majestic bald eagle. These are the forests that provide unparalleled recreational opportunities for Oregonians and the scores and scores of visitors we get from Minnesota and every other part of the country as well. But the legislation I offer today with Senator Smith differs from the bill I introduced several years ago because it responds to the many comments we have heard. We have received thousands of comments on our proposed legislation. Some comments came as a result of the general public meetings I held at home in Oregon. Many of the meetings lasted over 3 hours. Everybody who wanted to speak was given the opportunity to do so. Other comments came from the second Mount Hood summit that was held at Timberline Lodge, hosted by Congressmen Walden and Blumenauer. My staff and I met with over 100 community groups and local governments, the members of the Oregon congressional delegation, the Governor, and the Bush administration. More comments came from calls and letters from Oregonians who are saying that now, now, now is the time to preserve Mount Hood. Overwhelmingly, these comments have urged that we build on Oregon's wilderness system. This goal is as important today as it was in 1804, when Lewis and Clark first viewed Mount Hood; in 1964, when the Wilderness Act was passed; or in 1984, when wilderness protections were last designated on Mount Hood. It is time to plan now to protect this treasure for future generations. The Mount Hood National Forest is the seventh most visited national forest in our country. In the 22 years that have elapsed since any new wilderness has been designated on Mount Hood, the population in the local counties has increased significantly--25 percent in Multnomah County, 24 percent in Hood River County, and 28 percent in Clackamas County. The predominant public use of this urban forest is nonmechanized activities such as hiking, camping, and fishing. With increasing emphasis on wild scenery, unspoiled wildlife habitats, free-flowing rivers, wilderness, and the need for opportunities for diverse outdoor recreation, sometimes it seems we are in jeopardy of loving our wild places to death. We all see Americans coming together to make sure the most special places are protected for future generations. A few years ago, the Forest Service made a proposal to limit the number of people who could hike on the south side of Mount Hood. Suffice it to say, the public outcry in opposition was enormous. It seems to me, rather than tell people they are going to be restricted from using our public lands, part of the solution for Mount Hood lies in providing more opportunities for them to enjoy the mountain's great places. We ought to ensure that the Mount Hood National Forest can meet the increased demand for outdoor experiences, and the legislation I offer today with Senator Smith provides these opportunities. Hundreds of people spoke at the public meetings I held throughout the State. I have received 2,500 written comments urging additional wilderness on Mount Hood. There are a few key areas the citizens continually come back and refer to: First, by astonishing numbers, they want to see additional wilderness on Mount Hood. A large number of Oregonians didn't think enough wilderness had been included, for example, in the legislation that was considered by the other body. A second area is mountain biking. Some mountain bikers expressed concern that their recreation opportunities not be unfairly curtailed. Senator Smith and I had many discussions with them to ensure that would not be the case. Third, fire protection and forest health was something referred to by many Oregonians. Citizens were concerned about the health of the forest. Those living in towns on the mountain and the gorge were concerned about fire protection in their communities, and we sought to address those issues as well. An additional concern was developed recreation, with some citizens worried about maintaining a role for developed recreation, such as skiing, on Mount Hood. In each of these areas, Senator Smith and I tried to follow up and be responsive to what citizens at home were saying. With respect to additional wilderness, there are currently 189,200 acres of designated wilderness in the Mount Hood National Forest. This bill increases wilderness on Mount Hood by designating approximately 128,000 acres of new wilderness. The bill adds the areas surrounding the oldest Mount Hood wilderness--the mountain itself--which was designated in the original Wilderness Act of 1964. These additions include cathedral old growth forests, special trails, lava beds that were created during the Mount Hood eruptions, and much of the legendary route that Oregon's pioneers used when they came to our great State. To the north and west of the mountain, we add the viewshed of the Columbia Gorge to the current Mark O. Hatfield Wilderness. These areas encompass the spectacular ridges that frame the gorge that we marvel at from I-84 and include perhaps the greatest concentration of waterfalls in all of North America. To the southwest of the mountain, we add lands to the current Salmon Huckleberry Wilderness to conserve their diverse wildlife and protect unique recreational areas such as those around the extremely popular Mirror Lake. These lands include Alder Creek, the source of drinking water for the city of Sandy, and that city unanimously endorsed the draft proposal. Over to the east are proposed additions to the Badger Creek Wilderness area. These areas provide a critical link between westside forests and eastside ecosystems. This area is known for its spectacular colors in the fall and the best deer and elk hunting in our entire Mount Hood National Forest. Among the areas we are protecting is the newly designated Richard L. Kohnstamm Memorial area. It is dedicated in honor of Mr. Kohnstamm who restored the historic Timberline Lodge built originally by the Works Progress Administration in 1937. Our new 2007 bill adds 2,730 acres of Marion County lands in the Bull of the Woods Wilderness Additions, while removing lands where users identified potential conflicts. Second, in the area of wild and scenic rivers, we protect over 79 miles of wild and scenic rivers on nine free-flowing rivers. This protects some of the most pristine rivers in our State. Among those proposed rivers are the picturesque waterfalls and glacial outwash of the East Fork of the Hood River, and the ancestral hunting and fishing grounds of Fish Creek. Over 17 miles of extraordinary salmon and steelhead habitat on the Collowash River have also been added for protection under our legislation. Mountain biking is an area where there has been a lot of debate. We believed the local riders raised valid concerns, and we took two steps. First, we proposed the Mount Hood National Recreation Area. This area was so popular in our last bill that Senator Smith and I decided to greatly expand it to include 34,640 acres, an increase of over 16,000 additional acres. It is going to offer permanent environmental protection to those beautiful areas, while providing mountain bikers, recreational users, and others an opportunity to enjoy recreation on the mountain. Additionally, I made boundary adjustments to ensure that all open mountain biking trails were not included in this proposed legislation. With respect to fire protection and forest health, we tried to make clear that where there are healthy, older trees, they should not be harvested on Mount Hood or in the gorge. Older healthy stands are most resistant to fire and disease. However, there is an enormous backlog of overcrowded plantation, second growth that really ought to be thinned. The legislation includes provisions that would give the Forest Service a mandate to prepare an assessment for promoting forests resilient to fire, insects, and disease. This also includes provisions to study and encourage the development of biomass in conjunction with forest health work. We happen to think that biomass is one of the most exciting new fields for Oregonians to get into. The opportunity to generate clean energy, help small rural communities, create family wage jobs, is something that we should not miss out on. This legislation tries to tap the potential for progress in the biomass field as well. Finally, we add fire-safe community zones so that the Secretary of Agriculture will construct a system of fire-safe buffer zones around the communities of Cascade Locks and Government Camp. With respect to developed recreation, we wanted to facilitate recreational opportunities in this area and thus adopted a provision that came from the other body known as ``fee retention'' that would establish a special account for the Mount Hood National Forest. In addition, in order to help address growth while ensuring access to recreational opportunities, we have adopted provisions originally coming, again, from language from the other body directing the Secretary of Agriculture and the State of Oregon to develop an integrated transportation plan for the Mount Hood region. I commend particularly my colleague in the other body, Congressman Blumenauer, one of the real pioneers in thinking about transportation. Finally, with respect to key relationships with our tribes and our local governmental bodies, we have incorporated provisions on local and tribal relationships, emphasizing the rich history of the Mount Hood area and affirming the rights of Native peoples to access the mountains as they have for generations. The protections of these important Oregon places is going to depend on the hard work and dedication of all Oregonians. I am very pleased--I am summing up, and the Senate has been patient in giving me this extra time--to say that this has been a bipartisan effort by the Oregon congressional delegation. Senator Smith joins me in introducing this legislation. We believe this brings together our county commissioners, entrepreneurs, environmentalists, Chamber of Commerce, State-elected officials, the Governor. All of those who feel so strongly about protecting Mount Hood rolled up their sleeves, went to work, and joined myself and Senator Smith to try to find common ground to make sure that Mount Hood would be protected for all time. We are looking forward to perfecting the legislation together in the coming weeks and looking forward to seeing a swift adoption by Congress. The grandeur of Mount Hood and our special treasures is pretty much in the chromosomes of Oregonians. Protecting our treasures is something about which we feel so strongly. Today is a special day for us because, once again, the citizens of our State have come together and have worked with myself and Senator Smith to take action to protect our treasures. Mr. President, Oregon's Mount Hood is a cherished State treasure. This wild place is often photographed, visited and enjoyed by scores of Oregonians and non-Oregonians. Today, I am introducing, along with my colleague Senator Smith, a bi-partisan Oregon Wilderness bill: the ``Lewis and Clark Mount Hood Wilderness Act of 2007.'' This bill is similar to the one Senator Smith and I introduced in the last Congress, but it includes several improvements that resulted from comments received from stakeholders. The bill also includes input from the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, which we hope will help speed the bill's passage. In tribute to the great riverdependent journey of Lewis and Clark, our legislation adds nine free-flowing stretches of rivers to the National Wild and Scenic River System. This reflects the Oregonian wish to protect but also actively experience our State's treasures. This bill contains many elements of the Mount Hood bill I introduced in 2004, while also incorporating many new provisions to protect and improve the Mount Hood region. This bill protects the lower elevation forests surrounding Mount Hood and the Columbia River Gorge as Lewis and Clark saw them. These forests embody the natural beauty of Oregon. They provide the clean water necessary for the survival of threatened steelhead, Coho and Chinook salmon. These forests provide critical habitat and diverse ecosystems for elk, deer, lynx and the majestic bald eagle. And these are the forests that provide unparalleled recreational opportunities for Oregonians and our visitors. But the bill I introduce today differs from the bill I introduced 2 years ago because it responds to the many comments I heard in the ensuing years. I received thousands of comments on proposed Mount Hood legislation. Some comments came as a result of the general public meetings I held in Oregon. Many of the meetings lasted over 3 hours, and everyone who wanted to speak was given an opportunity to do so. Other comments came from the second Mount Hood Summit held at Timberline Lodge hosted by Representatives Walden and Blumenauer. I and my staff met with over 100 community groups and local governments, the members of the Oregon congressional delegation, the Governor, and the Bush administration. And still more comments came from letters and phone calls from Oregonians. Overwhelmingly, these comments urged me to protect and build on Oregon's Wilderness system. This goal is as important today as it was in 1804, when Lewis and Clark first viewed Mount Hood, 1964, when the Wilderness Act was passed, or 1984, when wilderness protections were last designated on Mount Hood--if not more so. To succeed, we must provide the tools that help us create a planned future on Mount Hood. This bill does both. The Mount Hood National Forest is the seventh most visited National Forest in the United States. In the 22 years that have elapsed since any new wilderness has been designated in the Mount Hood area, the population in local counties has increased significantly--25 percent in Multnomah County, 24 percent in Hood River County, and 28 percent in Clackamas County. The predominant public use of this urban forest is non-mechanized activity like hiking, camping, and fishing. With increasing emphasis on wild scenery, unspoiled wildlife habitats, free flowing rivers, wilderness and the need for opportunities for diverse outdoor recreation, sometimes it seems we are in jeopardy of ``loving our wild places to death.'' A few years ago, the Forest Service made a proposal to limit the number of people that could hike the south side of Mount Hood and the public outcry was enormous. Seems to me, rather than tell people that they are going to be restricted from using our public lands, part of the solution for the future of the Mountain lies in providing more opportunities for them to enjoy the Mountain's great places. We should ensure the Mount Hood National Forest can meet the increased use and demand for outdoor experiences--my bill will provide those opportunities. Of the hundreds of people who attended the meetings I held throughout the State of Oregon, the vast majority spoke in favor of more wilderness. Additionally, I have received more than 2,500 written comments supporting additional wilderness for Mount Hood. This is what I have heard: First and foremost, I heard that Oregonians in astonishing numbers support protecting Mount Hood and the Columbia River Gorge with additional wilderness. A large number of Oregonians didn't think that enough wilderness areas had been included in the House proposal. Some mountain bikers expressed concerns that their recreation opportunities not be unfairly curtailed. Some people were worried about forest health, and those living in towns on the mountain and in the gorge were concerned about fire protection for their communities. Some people were worried about maintaining a role for developed recreation, like skiing, on Mt. Hood. This is what my bill does to address those concerns: There are currently l89,200 acres of designated wilderness in the Mount Hood National Forest. This bill increases wilderness on Mount Hood by designating approximately 128,600 new acres of wilderness. This bill adds the areas surrounding the oldest Mt. Hood Wilderness-- the mountain itself--which was designated in the original Wilderness Act of 1964. These additions include cathedral old growth forests, the historic Tilly Jane trail, lava beds that were created during the Mt. Hood eruptions, and much of the legendary route that Oregon's pioneers used when they were settling our great State. To the north and west of the mountain, I would add the viewshed of the Columbia Gorge to the current Mark O. Hatfield wilderness. These areas encompass the spectacular ridges framing the Gorge that we all marvel at from 1-84 and include perhaps the greatest concentration of waterfalls in North America. To the southwest of the mountain I add lands to the current Salmon Huckleberry Wilderness to conserve their diverse wildlife and protect unique recreational areas like those around popular Mirror Lake. These lands include Alder Creek, the source of drinking water for the City of Sandy, which unanimously endorsed the draft proposal. Over to the east are proposed additions to the Badger Creek Wilderness. These areas provide a critical link between Westside forests and Eastside ecosystems. This area is known for beautiful fall color and the best deer and elk hunting in the entire Mount Hood National Forest. Among the areas we are protecting is the newly designated Richard L. Kohnstamm Memorial Area. It is dedicated in honor of Mr. Kohnstamm who restored the historic Timberline Lodge--built originally by the Works Progress Administration in 1937--to its former grandeur. Our new 2007 bill adds 2730 acres of Marion County lands in the Bull of the Woods Wilderness Additions, while removing lands where users identified potential conflicts. My proposal seeks to protect over 79.6 miles of wild and scenic rivers on nine free flowing rivers. This includes some of the most pristine and beautiful rivers in Oregon. Among those proposed rivers are the picturesque waterfalls and glacial outwash of the East Fork of the Hood River, and the ancestral hunting and fishing grounds of Fish Creek. Over 17 miles of superb salmon and steelhead habitat on the Collowash River have also been proposed for protection. I believe that local riders raised some valid concerns, so I did two things. I have proposed Mount Hood National Recreation Area. This area was so popular in our last bill that Senator Smith and I decided to greatly expand it to include 34,640 acres--an increase of over 16,700 acres. It will offer greater, permanent environmental protections to those beautiful areas, while providing mountain bikers and other recreational users an opportunity to continue to recreate in these areas. Additionally, I made boundary adjustments to ensure all open mountain biking trails were not included in my proposed wilderness. I protect wilderness, where there are healthy, older trees that should never be harvested on Mount Hood or in the Gorge. Older, healthy stands are the most resistant to fire and disease. However, there is an enormous backlog of over-crowded, plantation, second-growth that should be thinned. My bill includes provisions that would give the Forest Service a mandate to prepare an assessment for promoting forests resilient to fire, insects and disease. This also includes provisions to study and encourage the development of biomass in conjunction with forest health work. In addition, I added fire safe community zones so that the Secretary will construct a system of fire safe buffer zones around the communities of Cascade Locks and Government Camp. In order to facilitate developed recreation opportunities, I have adopted the House provisions establishing a ``feeretention'' provision that will establish an account for the Mount Hood National Forest. In addition, in order to help address growth while ensuring access to recreational opportunities, I have adopted provisions, originally coming from the language passed in the House last Congress, directing the Secretary and the State of Oregon to develop an integrated transportation plan for the Mount Hood region. I have also incorporated provisions on local and tribal relationships emphasizing the rich history of the Mount Hood region and affirming the rights of Native peoples to access the mountain's resources, as they have for generations. The protection of these important Oregon places will depend on the hard work and dedication of all Oregonians and particularly that of my Oregon colleagues here in the Congress. I am especially pleased that Senator Smith has joined me in developing this bipartisan legislation and putting forth our proposal for wilderness. I am hopeful everyone will pull together: county Commissioners, environmentalists, entrepreneurs, chambers of commerce, State elected officials, the Governor, and the Oregon delegation here in the Capitol. I look forward to perfecting legislation together in the coming weeks, and seeing its swift adoption by Congress thereafter. Then the grandeur of Mount Hood and other Oregon treasures can be assured for future generations. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, it has been more than 200 years since Lewis and Clark first laid eyes on Mount Hood. Today, I propose, with Senator Smith, that the spectacular mountain, seen first by our pioneers, should be preserved for all time. The Lewis and Clark Mount Hood Wilderness Act of 2007, which we introduce today, is similar to the bill Senator Smith and I introduced in the last Congress. It does include several improvements that came about from comments and constructive suggestions from a variety of groups at home in Oregon. The legislation also includes input from the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. We appreciate their input and believe their views can help speed the bill's passage. In tribute to the great river-dependent journey of Lewis and Clark, our legislation adds nine free-flowing stretches of rivers to the National Wild and Scenic River System. This reflects the views of Oregonians, but, frankly, I hear it from folks in the Midwest, where the Presiding Officer lives, and from people from every nook and cranny in this country who have all come to treasure our spectacular mountain. This legislation contains a number of provisions of the original Mount Hood legislation I introduced in 2004. The bill protects the lower elevation forests surrounding Mount Hood and the Columbia River Gorge as Lewis and Clark saw them. These forests embody the natural beauty of our home State. They provide the clean water necessary for the survival of threatened steelhead, Coho, and Chinook salmon. They provide critical habitat and diverse ecosystems for elk, deer, lynx, and the majestic bald eagle. These are the forests that provide unparalleled recreational opportunities for Oregonians and the scores and scores of visitors we get from Minnesota and every other part of the country as well. But the legislation I offer today with Senator Smith differs from the bill I introduced several years ago because it responds to the many comments we have heard. We have received thousands of comments on our proposed legislation. Some comments came as a result of the general public meetings I held at home in Oregon. Many of the meetings lasted over 3 hours. Everybody who wanted to speak was given the opportunity to do so. Other comments came from the second Mount Hood summit that was held at Timberline Lodge, hosted by Congressmen Walden and Blumenauer. My staff and I met with over 100 community groups and local governments, the members of the Oregon congressional delegation, the Governor, and the Bush administration. More comments came from calls and letters from Oregonians who are saying that now, now, now is the time to preserve Mount Hood. Overwhelmingly, these comments have urged that we build on Oregon's wilderness system. This goal is as important today as it was in 1804, when Lewis and Clark first viewed Mount Hood; in 1964, when the Wilderness Act was passed; or in 1984, when wilderness protections were last designated on Mount Hood. It is time to plan now to protect this treasure for future generations. The Mount Hood National Forest is the seventh most visited national forest in our country. In the 22 years that have elapsed since any new wilderness has been designated on Mount Hood, the population in the local counties has increased significantly--25 percent in Multnomah County, 24 percent in Hood River County, and 28 percent in Clackamas County. The predominant public use of this urban forest is nonmechanized activities such as hiking, camping, and fishing. With increasing emphasis on wild scenery, unspoiled wildlife habitats, free-flowing rivers, wilderness, and the need for opportunities for diverse outdoor recreation, sometimes it seems we are in jeopardy of loving our wild places to death. We all see Americans coming together to make sure the most special places are protected for future generations. A few years ago, the Forest Service made a proposal to limit the number of people who could hike on the south side of Mount Hood. Suffice it to say, the public outcry in opposition was enormous. It seems to me, rather than tell people they are going to be restricted from using our public lands, part of the solution for Mount Hood lies in providing more opportunities for them to enjoy the mountain's great places. We ought to ensure that the Mount Hood National Forest can meet the increased demand for outdoor experiences, and the legislation I offer today with Senator Smith provides these opportunities. Hundreds of people spoke at the public meetings I held throughout the State. I have received 2,500 written comments urging additional wilderness on Mount Hood. There are a few key areas the citizens continually come back and refer to: First, by astonishing numbers, they want to see additional wilderness on Mount Hood. A large number of Oregonians didn't think enough wilderness had been included, for example, in the legislation that was considered by the other body. A second area is mountain biking. Some mountain bikers expressed concern that their recreation opportunities not be unfairly curtailed. Senator Smith and I had many discussions with them to ensure that would not be the case. Third, fire protection and forest health was something referred to by many Oregonians. Citizens were concerned about the health of the forest. Those living in towns on the mountain and the gorge were concerned about fire protection in their communities, and we sought to address those issues as well. An additional concern was developed recreation, with some citizens worried about maintaining a role for developed recreation, such as skiing, on Mount Hood. In each of these areas, Senator Smith and I tried to follow up and be responsive to what citizens at home were saying. With respect to additional wilderness, there are currently 189,200 acres of designated wilderness in the Mount Hood National Forest. This bill increases wilderness on Mount Hood by designating approximately 128,000 acres of new wilderness. The bill adds the areas surrounding the oldest Mount Hood wilderness--the mountain itself--which was designated in the original Wilderness Act of 1964. These additions include cathedral old growth forests, special trails, lava beds that were created during the Mount Hood eruptions, and much of the legendary route that Oregon's pioneers used when they came to our great State. To the north and west of the mountain, we add the viewshed of the Columbia Gorge to the current Mark O. Hatfield Wilderness. These areas encompass the spectacular ridges that frame the gorge that we marvel at from I-84 and include perhaps the greatest concentration of waterfalls in all of North America. To the southwest of the mountain, we add lands to the current Salmon Huckleberry Wilderness to conserve their diverse wildlife and protect unique recreational areas such as those around the extremely popular Mirror Lake. These lands include Alder Creek, the source of drinking water for the city of Sandy, and that city unanimously endorsed the draft proposal. Over to the east are proposed additions to the Badger Creek Wilderness area. These areas provide a critical link between westside forests and eastside ecosystems. This area is known for its spectacular colors in the fall and the best deer and elk hunting in our entire Mount Hood National Forest. Among the areas we are protecting is the newly designated Richard L. Kohnstamm Memorial area. It is dedicated in honor of Mr. Kohnstamm who restored the historic Timberline Lodge built originally by the Works Progress Administration in 1937. Our new 2007 bill adds 2,730 acres of Marion County lands in the Bull of the Woods Wilderness Additions, while removing lands where users identified potential conflicts. Second, in the area of wild and scenic rivers, we protect over 79 miles of wild and scenic rivers on nine free-flowing rivers. This protects some of the most pristine rivers in our State. Among those proposed rivers are the picturesque waterfalls and glacial outwash of the East Fork of the Hood River, and the ancestral hunting and fishing grounds of Fish Creek. Over 17 miles of extraordinary salmon and steelhead habitat on the Collowash River have also been added for protection under our legislation. Mountain biking is an area where there has been a lot of debate. We believed the local riders raised valid concerns, and we took two steps. First, we proposed the Mount Hood National Recreation Area. This area was so popular in our last bill that Senator Smith and I decided to greatly expand it to include 34,640 acres, an increase of over 16,000 additional acres. It is going to offer permanent environmental protection to those beautiful areas, while providing mountain bikers, recreational users, and others an opportunity to enjoy recreation on the mountain. Additionally, I made boundary adjustments to ensure that all open mountain biking trails were not included in this proposed legislation. With respect to fire protection and forest health, we tried to make clear that where there are healthy, older trees, they should not be harvested on Mount Hood or in the gorge. Older healthy stands are most resistant to fire and disease. However, there is an enormous backlog of overcrowded plantation, second growth that really ought to be thinned. The legislation includes provisions that would give the Forest Service a mandate to prepare an assessment for promoting forests resilient to fire, insects, and disease. This also includes provisions to study and encourage the development of biomass in conjunction with forest health work. We happen to think that biomass is one of the most exciting new fields for Oregonians to get into. The opportunity to generate clean energy, help small rural communities, create family wage jobs, is something that we should not miss out on. This legislation tries to tap the potential for progress in the biomass field as well. Finally, we add fire-safe community zones so that the Secretary of Agriculture will construct a system of fire-safe buffer zones around the communities of Cascade Locks and Government Camp. With respect to developed recreation, we wanted to facilitate recreational opportunities in this area and thus adopted a provision that came from the other body known as ``fee retention'' that would establish a special account for the Mount Hood National Forest. In addition, in order to help address growth while ensuring access to recreational opportunities, we have adopted provisions originally coming, again, from language from the other body directing the Secretary of Agriculture and the State of Oregon to develop an integrated transportation plan for the Mount Hood region. I commend particularly my colleague in the other body, Congressman Blumenauer, one of the real pioneers in thinking about transportation. Finally, with respect to key relationships with our tribes and our local governmental bodies, we have incorporated provisions on local and tribal relationships, emphasizing the rich history of the Mount Hood area and affirming the rights of Native peoples to access the mountains as they have for generations. The protections of these important Oregon places is going to depend on the hard work and dedication of all Oregonians. I am very pleased--I am summing up, and the Senate has been patient in giving me this extra time--to say that this has been a bipartisan effort by the Oregon congressional delegation. Senator Smith joins me in introducing this legislation. We believe this brings together our county commissioners, entrepreneurs, environmentalists, Chamber of Commerce, State-elected officials, the Governor. All of those who feel so strongly about protecting Mount Hood rolled up their sleeves, went to work, and joined myself and Senator Smith to try to find common ground to make sure that Mount Hood would be protected for all time. We are looking forward to perfecting the legislation together in the coming weeks and looking forward to seeing a swift adoption by Congress. The grandeur of Mount Hood and our special treasures is pretty much in the chromosomes of Oregonians. Protecting our treasures is something about which we feel so strongly. Today is a special day for us because, once again, the citizens of our State have come together and have worked with myself and Senator Smith to take action to protect our treasures. Mr. President, Oregon's Mount Hood is a cherished State treasure. This wild place is often photographed, visited and enjoyed by scores of Oregonians and non-Oregonians. Today, I am introducing, along with my colleague Senator Smith, a bi-partisan Oregon Wilderness bill: the ``Lewis and Clark Mount Hood Wilderness Act of 2007.'' This bill is similar to the one Senator Smith and I introduced in the last Congress, but it includes several improvements that resulted from comments received from stakeholders. The bill also includes input from the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, which we hope will help speed the bill's passage. In tribute to the great riverdependent journey of Lewis and Clark, our legislation adds nine free-flowing stretches of rivers to the National Wild and Scenic River System. This reflects the Oregonian wish to protect but also actively experience our State's treasures. This bill contains many elements of the Mount Hood bill I introduced in 2004, while also incorporating many new provisions to protect and improve the Mount Hood region. This bill protects the lower elevation forests surrounding Mount Hood and the Columbia River Gorge as Lewis and Clark saw them. These forests embody the natural beauty of Oregon. They provide the clean water necessary for the survival of threatened steelhead, Coho and Chinook salmon. These forests provide critical habitat and diverse ecosystems for elk, deer, lynx and the majestic bald eagle. And these are the forests that provide unparalleled recreational opportunities for Oregonians and our visitors. But the bill I introduce today differs from the bill I introduced 2 years ago because it responds to the many comments I heard in the ensuing years. I received thousands of comments on proposed Mount Hood legislation. Some comments came as a result of the general public meetings I held in Oregon. Many of the meetings lasted over 3 hours, and everyone who wanted to speak was given an opportunity to do so. Other comments came from the second Mount Hood Summit held at Timberline Lodge hosted by Representatives Walden and Blumenauer. I and my staff met with over 100 community groups and local governments, the members of the Oregon congressional delegation, the Governor, and the Bush administration. And still more comments came from letters and phone calls from Oregonians. Overwhelmingly, these comments urged me to protect and build on Oregon's Wilderness system. This goal is as important today as it was in 1804, when Lewis and Clark first viewed Mount Hood, 1964, when the Wilderness Act was passed, or 1984, when wilderness protections were last designated on Mount Hood--if not more so. To succeed, we must provide the tools that help us create a planned future on Mount Hood. This bill does both. The Mount Hood National Forest is the seventh most visited National Forest in the United States. In the 22 years that have elapsed since any new wilderness has been designated in the Mount Hood area, the population in local counties has increased significantly--25 percent in Multnomah County, 24 percent in Hood River County, and 28 percent in Clackamas County. The predominant public use of this urban forest is non-mechanized activity like hiking, camping, and fishing. With increasing emphasis on wild scenery, unspoiled wildlife habitats, free flowing rivers, wilderness and the need for opportunities for diverse outdoor recreation, sometimes it seems we are in jeopardy of ``loving our wild places to death.'' A few years ago, the Forest Service made a proposal to limit the number of people that could hike the south side of Mount Hood and the public outcry was enormous. Seems to me, rather than tell people that they are going to be restricted from using our public lands, part of the solution for the future of the Mountain lies in providing more opportunities for them to enjoy the Mountain's great places. We should ensure the Mount Hood National Forest can meet the increased use and demand for outdoor experiences--my bill will provide those opportunities. Of the hundreds of people who attended the meetings I held throughout the State of Oregon, the vast majority spoke in favor of more wilderness. Additionally, I have received more than 2,500 written comments supporting additional wilderness for Mount Hood. This is what I have heard: First and foremost, I heard that Oregonians in astonishing numbers support protecting Mount Hood and the Columbia River Gorge with additional wilderness. A large number of Oregonians didn't think that enough wilderness areas had been included in the House proposal. Some mountain bikers expressed concerns that their recreation opportunities not be unfairly curtailed. Some people were worried about forest health, and those living in towns on the mountain and in the gorge were concerned about fire protection for their communities. Some people were worried about maintaining a role for developed recreation, like skiing, on Mt. Hood. This is what my bill does to address those concerns: There are currently l89,200 acres of designated wilderness in the Mount Hood National Forest. This bill increases wilderness on Mount Hood by designating approximately 128,600 new acres of wilderness. This bill adds the areas surrounding the oldest Mt. Hood Wilderness-- the mountain itself--which was designated in the original Wilderness Act of 1964. These additions include cathedral old growth forests, the historic Tilly Jane trail, lava beds that were created during the Mt. Hood eruptions, and much of the legendary route that Oregon's pioneers used when they were settling our great State. To the north and west of the mountain, I would add the viewshed of the Columbia Gorge to the current Mark O. Hatfield wilderness. These areas encompass the spectacular ridges framing the Gorge that we all marvel at from 1-84 and include perhaps the greatest concentration of waterfalls in North America. To the southwest of the mountain I add lands to the current Salmon Huckleberry Wilderness to conserve their diverse wildlife and protect unique recreational areas like those around popular Mirror Lake. These lands include Alder Creek, the source of drinking water for the City of Sandy, which unanimously endorsed the draft proposal. Over to the east are proposed additions to the Badger Creek Wilderness. These areas provide a critical link between Westside forests and Eastside ecosystems. This area is known for beautiful fall color and the best deer and elk hunting in the entire Mount Hood National Forest. Among the areas we are protecting is the newly designated Richard L. Kohnstamm Memorial Area. It is dedicated in honor of Mr. Kohnstamm who restored the historic Timberline Lodge--built originally by the Works Progress Administration in 1937--to its former grandeur. Our new 2007 bill adds 2730 acres of Marion County lands in the Bull of the Woods Wilderness Additions, while removing lands where users identified potential conflicts. My proposal seeks to protect over 79.6 miles of wild and scenic rivers on nine free flowing rivers. This includes some of the most pristine and beautiful rivers in Oregon. Among those proposed rivers are the picturesque waterfalls and glacial outwash of the East Fork of the Hood River, and the ancestral hunting and fishing grounds of Fish Creek. Over 17 miles of superb salmon and steelhead habitat on the Collowash River have also been proposed for protection. I believe that local riders raised some valid concerns, so I did two things. I have proposed Mount Hood National Recreation Area. This area was so popular in our last bill that Senator Smith and I decided to greatly expand it to include 34,640 acres--an increase of over 16,700 acres. It will offer greater, permanent environmental protections to those beautiful areas, while providing mountain bikers and other recreational users an opportunity to continue to recreate in these areas. Additionally, I made boundary adjustments to ensure all open mountain biking trails were not included in my proposed wilderness. I protect wilderness, where there are healthy, older trees that should never be harvested on Mount Hood or in the Gorge. Older, healthy stands are the most resistant to fire and disease. However, there is an enormous backlog of over-crowded, plantation, second-growth that should be thinned. My bill includes provisions that would give the Forest Service a mandate to prepare an assessment for promoting forests resilient to fire, insects and disease. This also includes provisions to study and encourage the development of biomass in conjunction with forest health work. In addition, I added fire safe community zones so that the Secretary will construct a system of fire safe buffer zones around the communities of Cascade Locks and Government Camp. In order to facilitate developed recreation opportunities, I have adopted the House provisions establishing a ``feeretention'' provision that will establish an account for the Mount Hood National Forest. In addition, in order to help address growth while ensuring access to recreational opportunities, I have adopted provisions, originally coming from the language passed in the House last Congress, directing the Secretary and the State of Oregon to develop an integrated transportation plan for the Mount Hood region. I have also incorporated provisions on local and tribal relationships emphasizing the rich history of the Mount Hood region and affirming the rights of Native peoples to access the mountain's resources, as they have for generations. The protection of these important Oregon places will depend on the hard work and dedication of all Oregonians and particularly that of my Oregon colleagues here in the Congress. I am especially pleased that Senator Smith has joined me in developing this bipartisan legislation and putting forth our proposal for wilderness. I am hopeful everyone will pull together: county Commissioners, environmentalists, entrepreneurs, chambers of commerce, State elected officials, the Governor, and the Oregon delegation here in the Capitol. I look forward to perfecting legislation together in the coming weeks, and seeing its swift adoption by Congress thereafter. Then the grandeur of Mount Hood and other Oregon treasures can be assured for future generations. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to hold a hearing during the session of the Senate on Monday, February 12, 2007, at 2:30 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The dual purpose of this hearing is to receive recommendations on policies and programs to improve the energy efficiency of buildings and to expand the role of electric and gas utilities in energy efficiency programs.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. I thank my colleague for his presentation. I hope the entire Senate followed this discussion--that our whole country does. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN. One last question, if I might, Mr. President. Also, let me also tell the Senate we are very pleased that the Senator from Vermont has joined the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. He is going to hear us talking an awful lot in the committee about the county payments legislation, but I just want to say tonight in the Senate I am very pleased the Senator from Vermont has come to the Senate, and we are glad to have him on the committee. The last question I would pose to my colleague deals, again, with the urgency of all of this, so the Senate is clear on this. I think there is always a sense that sometimes you come to the floor and there is a little bit of an alarmist kind of approach. My understanding is in our home State, from county officials, there are pink slips going out now. There are budgets that are being made now that are going to be very hard to alter. I appreciate my colleague's presentation over the last bit, and I enjoyed the earlier one as well, and I felt it was an important presentation. What exactly is taking place? So the Senate is up on this in terms of county budgets, layoff notices, and the kind of pain--that is what this is really all about, the pain we are seeing working families and citizens going through--what exactly is taking place as these budget choices are being made?

Mr. WYDEN. The history goes back to the beginning of the last century, essentially. Because the Federal Government owns more than half of our land, we historically received payments for essential services--schools, police and the like--that were based on timber receipts. Now that the environmental laws have changed, those funds are not there. So, as I understand it, the presentation that my colleague is making today is based on the idea that this is not about Oregon's seeking some kind of arbitrary figure that we basically would like to offer up as kind of a wish list or to try to get through because we will try to bull it through, but that it is really based on history. It is based on a historical formula that stems from the fact that the Federal Government owns most of the land. Is that essentially the kind of historical viewpoint that my colleague is trying to bring to the Senate?

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, one last question, if I might, for my colleague. I appreciate his point with respect to the alternatives because the administration offered a proposal, a selloff of national treasures. I and others thought that was wrong. We went to work. Our colleagues came up with alternatives. Senator Baucus and I found an example in an area where Government contractors were not paying taxes in a prompt way. There were questions about whether it made sense, at least in the administration. Then they went off and took the revenues. I think your point about how Democrats and Republicans have brought alternatives with respect to how to pay for this program in the Congress is an important one. The last one I would like to have you lay out for the Senate is that I want Senators to know that this is not some exercise on our part, in terms of just plucking an arbitrary figure out of the air and saying: By God, this is the money that we want for our State. As I understand the presentation of the Senator, you are trying to lay out the history.

Mr. WYDEN. Continuing through the Chair, Mr. President, isn't it correct, I ask my colleague, that members of our delegation, of both political parties, have suggested alternatives for funding this program? For example, our whole delegation to a person was very troubled about this idea of selling off our treasures because not only was that not morally right, clearly it would have no prospect whatever of passing in the Senate. So I know our colleague in the other body who represents the eastern part of our State had some good ideas, and our colleague in the other body from southwestern Oregon had some good ideas. It seems to me--and I think it would be helpful if you could bring the Senate up to date--that both Democrats and Republicans have been trying to work in good faith for ideas that would responsibly fund this program. I think it would be helpful to have my colleague's reaction on that.

Mr. WYDEN. Again, through the Chair, Mr. President, would it be my colleague's sense that at home the kinds of services that are on the line are not exactly what the people call the extras? We are talking about law enforcement. We are talking about schools. I know the Senator shares a long friendship with Sheriff Mike Winters, for example, of southern Oregon, and he has told me the kinds of cutbacks we have seen in law enforcement are extraordinary, such as involving the effort to fight methamphetamines. What is your sense of the kinds of services we would see go by the boards if this program is not sustained?

Mr. WYDEN. Through the Chair, I would like to pose a couple of questions to my colleague making an important speech. I have been attending a lot of town meetings across the State, and I know my colleague is attending some as well. What is your sense of how dire the situation is at home? When I talk to people, you get the sense this is a real lifeline, and I think it would be helpful if you could lay out exactly that sense of urgency you are picking up at home.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Virginia, I think, will be pleased with my request. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Warner be recognized at this time for up to 60 minutes and, following that, Senator Murray be recognized for 15 minutes, a Republican Senator be recognized next for 10 minutes, then Senator McCaskill be recognized for 10 minutes, and then Senator Smith be recognized for up to 75 minutes. I will be joining Senator Smith during his 75 minutes. That is my request.

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

Mr. WYDEN. The Senator is right with respect to how critical this question is. As he knows, because he and I have made this a top priority now for quite some time, we didn't get a fair shake in the last session of Congress. I put a hold on several appointments from the Bush administration because I wanted to make sure that they got the wake-up call. I lifted that hold and, frankly, I wish I hadn't because I think they have never put the effort into trying to get this warranted program reauthorized. So Senator Smith is correct in terms of saying that this program should have been reauthorized some time ago. He and I have put it at the top of our priority list. This is not an abstract question. Decisions are being made by rural school officials, by county commissions at this time. They are looking at cuts that are going to affect our ability to protect the communities from serious matters as it relates to criminal justice, to adequate public education. And we are not talking about extras. We are talking about basics, as Sheriff Mike Winter from southwestern Oregon has noted, and local school officials as well. We want to make it clear just what the consequences are going to be. I mentioned Curry County on the Oregon coast, for example. A number of our other communities--Douglas County, Lane County, in particular-- are going to see direct and painful consequences as a result of this program and the failure of this program to be reauthorized. County payments legislation is supported by a diverse coalition. We are pleased to see that this is a top priority of the National Association of Counties. A number of labor organizations have also said that they believe this is critically important. I will just wrap it up by saying that I believe these cuts in payments to rural counties are going to hit the rural part of my State and rural America like a wrecking ball. They are going to pound these communities. And it doesn't have to happen. Senator Smith has made that point. I have made that point. The whole Oregon congressional delegation, every member of our House delegation, we don't have 50 Members representing us in the House of Representatives like California, but we are going to be heard. I have been gratified that Senator Reid, our majority leader, has been willing to spend so much time with me. He is a westerner. He knows what the impact is in a public lands State. He was in our State. He saw what the forests mean to us. He is an honorable man and a man of his word. He said he would work with me to make sure that our State gets a fair shake. We are going to make sure that message is heard loudly and clearly when we have the hearing in the Forestry Subcommittee. We will make sure the legislation that the Senator from Montana has joined me on will get a thorough hearing at that particular discussion. I thank the distinguished Presiding Officer for being a cosponsor of this bill. We are glad to have him in our bipartisan coalition. I wanted to wrap up by saying I appreciate Senator Smith's remarks here on the floor. He is going to hear from the Oregon congressional delegation and Oregon Senators again and again and again, until this critical program is reauthorized. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN. I am happy to yield.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, before he leaves the floor, let me tell my colleague from Oregon that I very much appreciate his comments with respect to the county payments legislation. The top priority--the top priority--for Oregon's congressional delegation in this session is getting this program reauthorized. I wrote this law in 2000 with Senator Craig because it was my view in 2000 that without this program, Oregon's rural communities would not survive. I am here today to tell the Senate that if this program is not reauthorized, there is a serious question today whether these rural communities will be able to survive. Now, I want to bring the Senate up to date on three developments with respect to the reauthorization of this critically needed program. The distinguished Senator from Nevada, the majority leader, Mr. Reid, has been the majority leader for just over 1 month. I have had many conversations with the majority leader about this program. He vacationed in our beautiful State this summer. He saw the importance of our bountiful forests. I explained to him that the Federal Government owns more than half of our State. He has told me that he is determined to work with me until our State gets a fair shake with respect to this critically important program. Second--and this is something that the distinguished Senator from Montana knows something about--we have a good bipartisan group of Senators on the legislation I have authored to reauthorize the program. Both Senators from Oregon, both Senators from Washington, and both Senators from California, the distinguished Senator from Montana, and the distinguished Senator from Alaska have all joined us in the effort to reauthorize this program. Third, as the chairman of the Forestry Subcommittee, I would like to announce that the first hearing we are going to have in the Forestry Subcommittee is to reauthorize this program. Because it is so important, because it is a lifeline to rural communities across our State, we are making this the subject of the first hearing. We have pink slips going out now, county commissions trying to make decisions about schools and law enforcement. These programs involved are not extras. They are not the kind of thing that you consider something you would like to have. These are programs that involve law enforcement, that raise the question of whether we are going to have school in our State other than three times a week in some of these rural communities. I am committed to making sure that doesn't happen. Senator Smith is committed to it. The whole Oregon congressional delegation is committed to it. In Curry County, for example, on the Oregon coast, they are looking at the prospect of laying off all nonessential workers, including patrol officers, some of whom would be left to perform only their mandated correction duties. In a few months, they will have laid off 20 percent of their county workforce. My judgment is--and this comes directly from those folks in Curry County--there is a real question about whether they are going to be able to continue as a county without this essential program. We have seen similar cuts put on the table all through the rural part of our State. A lot of Senators--I know the Senator from Montana knows a little bit about it--can't identify with something like this. In most of the East, they don't have half of their land in public ownership. They essentially have private property. A piece of private property is sold, revenue is generated, taxes are paid. That is how they pay for services. We have not been able to do that in our State because the Federal Government owns more than half of our land. People ask: How is it--and Senator Smith has touched on this this afternoon--that Oregon depends on these revenues for essential services? Well, God made a judgment that what we ought to do in Oregon is grow these beautiful trees. And, by God, we delivered. That is what we do. And we do it better than anybody else. So we didn't come up with some arbitrary figure back in 2000 and say, well, let's just give the State of Oregon a whole bunch of money because we decided to exercise raw political muscle. It was essentially based on a formula that is decades old, built around the proposition that where the Federal Government owns most of the land, we ought to make it possible for those communities to get help, at least at that time, through timber receipts. But when the environmental laws changed, suddenly those counties were high and dry. So I went to the Clinton administration. Frankly, I was pretty blunt. I have been blunt with the Bush administration, but I was even more blunt with the Clinton administration. I said: You don't pass this program, you might as well not come to our State because you are not going to be able to make a case for cutting off this program when those communities are getting hammered through no fault of their own. They did nothing wrong. What happened in this country is that values changed. Environmental priorities changed. All of a sudden those counties had nowhere to turn. So you are seeing that in Montana, in Oregon, throughout these small communities. Senator Smith has seen this as well. You can't go to a small community in rural Oregon, such as John Day, and tell them they ought to set up a biotechnology company in the next few months. They are making a big push right now to diversify and get into other industries. But these resource-dependent communities, communities that are looking at the axe falling on them, not in 6 months, not in a year, but coming up in a matter of weeks, they have nowhere to turn. So we consider ourselves the last line of defense. What we are asking for is what I and Senator Reid, the majority leader, have been talking about. And that is a fair shake for our State, not a death warrant for rural communities in our State, not a program that, in effect, has them shrivel up and disappear. We want a fair shake. This is an extraordinarily important issue. I just had a big round of townhall meetings across my State. We are all going home for the recess. I will start another round of those townhall meetings in rural Oregon this weekend. What happens at these meetings is you have law enforcement people. I had Sheriff Mike Winter from southern Oregon--I am sure Senator Smith knows Mike Winter--talking to us about what the cuts would mean in law enforcement in rural areas. We are talking about law enforcement, the fight against methamphetamines, which I know the Senator from Montana knows something about. It is a scourge that is clobbering the whole West. We can't leave our communities defenseless. We can't leave our communities without the resources they need to fight meth and these other critical problems. I have open meetings, one in every county every year. I am sure the Senator from Montana will be starting something like that. Folks in these rural school districts used to come up and say: Ron, we are not going to have school but for 3 days a week if we don't have this program. So what we are talking about is any serious semblance of public instruction in rural communities in our State. We don't see how we are going to be able to achieve it without this particular program. The consequences here are very real. The consequences are tragic. This is not a question of the Oregon congressional delegation, Senator Smith and myself, crying wolf and coming out and just being alarmists on the floor of the Senate. This is what we hear from our constituents. I heard it at town meetings a little bit ago, just a little over a week. I am going to hear it again this weekend. Suffice it to say, over 700 counties in 39 States are involved. Many of them are in parts of the country where the Federal Government owns most of the land. That is certainly the case in Oregon where we have many rural communities where significantly over half of the land is owned by the Federal Government.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I believe the distinguished Senator from Virginia has time reserved at about 3:45. I ask unanimous consent to be able to speak up until 3:45, when the distinguished Senator from Virginia has his time allotted.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, as a member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, I wish to talk a bit this morning about the all- important war against terrorism and particularly the sources of funding that allow the terrorists to obtain the resources with which they conduct this war. It is impossible to talk about funding terrorism without mentioning Saudi Arabia. With its extraordinary oil wealth, the Saudis have a tremendous economy which is home to many strains of extremist Islamist thought. Over the years, the combination of wealth and extremism has proved to be a volatile combination. A few years ago, a telethon in Saudi Arabia raised more than $100 million for the families of ``Palestinian martyrs,'' a group which reportedly included suicide bombers. According to public news reports, Saudi Arabia's ruler, King Fahd, ordered the fundraising drive as a way to channel public anger in the kingdom against the United States and Israel. Just because the Saudis are no longer holding telethons for terrorists does not mean that they aren't providing substantial funding for terrorism in other ways. A number of Government agencies have noted that Saudi Arabia is a source of funding for hate-filled extremist ideologies, but Saudi-based support for terrorism does not stop there. In fact, it may be a part, a small part of what we face in this war against terrorism. According to the State Department, Saudi donors and unregulated charities have been a major source of funding and support, not just for groups that preach radical ideologies but for actual terrorist organizations. I wish to cite now some specific examples. An examination of the public record reveals clear connections with some of the world's most infamous organizations, such as al-Qaida. The staff of the 9/11 Commission, for example, noted that the intelligence community identified Saudi Arabia as the ``primary source of money for al-Qaida both before and after the September 11th attacks.'' They went on to say ``fundraisers and facilitators throughout Saudi Arabia and the Gulf raised money for al-Qaida from witting and unwitting donors and divert[ed] funds from Islamic charities and mosques.'' The Iraq Study Group, to look at another effort to examine these issues, stated that ``Funding for the Sunni insurgency in Iraq comes from private donors in Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states,'' and Iraqi officials have reportedly asked the Saudi Government to do more to limit the support that these donors provide to Iraqi insurgents. The State Department has reported that private Saudi donors are a primary source of funding for Hamas. Early last year, Ambassador Crumpton, the State Department's coordinator for counterterrorism, told a House subcommittee that the Saudi Government, ``had made a bit of progress in reducing the flow of funds from Saudi Arabia to Hamas and other Palestinian rejection groups, but conceded that the money funding these terrorists is still going on.'' Other governments have gone even further in their statements with respect to the funding of terrorism. In the fall of 2005, Israeli officials announced they arrested an individual, who they claimed was acting as a courier between Hamas members in the Palestinian territories and Hamas members in Saudi Arabia. No other governments have confirmed this, but if it is correct, it certainly raises a host of troubling questions. Clearly, one can see that the threat posed by these donors goes beyond the spread of religious intolerance and extremely dogmatic forms of Islam. Rather, money is flowing from Saudi Arabia to support insurgent groups in Iraq; money is flowing from Saudi Arabia to Palestinian terrorist groups such as Hamas; money is flowing from Saudi Arabia to al-Qaida. Under Secretary of the Treasury Stewart Levey summed up this situation pretty clearly. He said: Is money leaving Saudi Arabia to fund terrorism abroad? Yes. Undoubtedly some of that money is going to Iraq, it's going to Southeast Asia, and it's going to other places where there are terrorists. There is money leaving Saudi Arabia. I think it is also appropriate to put this in the context of what it means to folks this Pennsylvania and Oregon and everywhere else, and in effect what happens when you pull up at a gas station in Pennsylvania and Oregon is you are paying a terror tax. A portion of what you pay for gasoline in Pennsylvania or Oregon or elsewhere, in effect, finds its way eventually to the Government of Saudi Arabia, and then we see that the Saudis end up back-dooring it to various kinds of terrorist organizations. The Government Accountability Office describes this problem very succinctly, stating it this way: Saudi Arabia's multibillion-dollar petroleum industry, although largely owned by the government, has fostered the creation of large private fortunes, enabling many wealthy Saudis to sponsor charities and educational foundations whose operations extend to many countries. Government and other expert reports have linked some Saudi donations to the global propagation of religious intolerance, hatred of Western values, and support to terrorist activities. So that is what we are talking about when we talk about this terror tax which literally is paid every time an American pulls up in Pennsylvania, Oregon, or anywhere else and fills their tank with gasoline. The former Director of Central Intelligence, James Woolsey, summed it up pretty well just recently. He said: We live in a world where Saudi Arabia earns about $160 billion from exporting oil and a big share of that, several billion dollars, goes to the Wahabbi sect for their worldwide work, which is to set up madrassas in Pakistan and other places. And the ideology that is taught in those madrassas is for all practical purposes the same as al-Qaida's. As the GAO report notes, this problem appears to go beyond the funding of an ``al-Qaida ideology''--it appears to be funding terrorist activities. So let me now turn for a few minutes to the question of the Saudi Government's role in all of this. When you look at all the evidence, it is pretty clear there is a serious problem, and the question is, What has the Saudi Arabian Government been doing about all of this? Are they part of the problem? Are they doing anything to address it? Let me review the history. First, there appears to be no question that in the first couple of years after the 9/11 attacks, Saudi Arabia was directly involved in supporting terrorism. The telethon that raised money for families of suicide bombers was sponsored by the Saudi King. In many ways, the Saudis' position changed when terrorism hit home in the aftermath of the horrible terrorist bombings that hit Riyadh in mid-2003. Since then, there seems to be broad agreement throughout the U.S. Government that the Saudi Government's counterterrorism efforts have improved. It is not at all clear that the Saudi Government is going far enough to help in this fight against terrorism. Following the Riyadh bombings, the Saudi Government instituted a number of new antiterrorism laws and policies, but all the evidence indicates they have fallen short with respect to implementation of those laws. Here is an example: The Saudi Government announced that all charitable donations distributed internationally must flow through a new national commission that purportedly would ensure the money did not end up in the hands of terrorists. It has now been nearly 3 years since this announcement was made, and the commission is still not yet up and running. Even worse, our Treasury officials reported last year that the Saudi Government's brandnew, highly touted finance intelligence unit was not ``fully functioning.'' Similarly, while the Saudi Government has worked with the United States to designate particular charities as terrorist financiers, it is not always possible for our Treasury officials to independently verify that particular problem charities--the ones we are most concerned about--have actually been shut down. Certainly, there have been some individuals in the Saudi Government who have attempted to address the terrorism question. At least since 2003, Saudi leaders have made a number of public statements indicating they wish to address the problem. But these examples make clear that the reality of what is needed to win this war against terrorism still is not in line with some of the rhetoric. With respect to implementing and enforcing antiterrorism policies, the actions of the Saudi Arabian Government are questionable at best. There are two problems. The first is, as I have indicated, not all of the proposed new laws and policies have been implemented, and the second is that we have to get the Saudis to make a more aggressive commitment to enforcement. So you have to get them implemented, and then you have to get them enforced. John Negroponte, of course, the Director of National Intelligence, has been following this. At one of our open meetings of the Intelligence Committee, I asked him his assessment of the situation. Director Negroponte indicated that, in his view, the situation had improved a bit since 2003, but he made it clear, stating specifically that more work needs to be done, especially in the area of private Saudi donors, and that more is needed to crack down on their activities. This sentiment was echoed by the Congressional Research Service, which reported that no high-profile donors--none--had been subject to criminal punishment by the Saudi Government. The State Department has said publicly: Saudi Arabia should demonstrate its willingness to hold elites accountable. But, unfortunately, in Saudi Arabia, the elites hold all the cards, and the Saudi Arabian Government, as indicated by the Congressional Research Service, is not willing to go after those who are most influential--the elites--in their country. Now, some have gone even further and suggested that the Saudi Government might actually be involved in the propagation and financing of terrorism. The evidence on this point is inconclusive, but this does not rule out the possibility that lower level officials in the Saudi Government may, in fact, be involved in funding or facilitating terrorism. Given the high levels of corruption reported in Saudi Arabia, this is certainly a possibility. Moreover, as the General Accounting Office points out, the distinction between the Government's support and funding versus that provided by entities and individuals, especially in the case of Saudi charities' alleged activities, is not always clear. The Saudi Royal Family is an excellent example. The Royal Family contains several thousand family members who collect Government allowances of varying amounts. If one of these royalties took a portion of their allowance money and funneled it to al-Qaida or Hamas, Saudi officials might claim that this did not even constitute Government support for terrorism. Certainly, I and others would say that the Government still bears significant responsibility. I would also argue that just because Saudi leaders are not personally involved in financing terrorism, this should not absolve them from accountability. Most of my constituents would contend that if terrorist activities are being planned or financed inside Saudi Arabia, then the Saudi Arabian Government has a responsibility to get off the dime and stop it. As we say in our State, you are either part of the problem or you are part of the solution. The Congress has a responsibility now to investigate this issue, and there are a number of key questions that ought to be answered. First, how much money is flowing from Saudi Arabia to terrorist groups? Which groups are the major beneficiaries and to what extent is official corruption a major factor? Second, there needs to be an examination of how far the Saudi Arabian Government has gone in implementing its new antiterrorist laws. Implementation and enforcement have clearly fallen short, but where can we see concrete examples of actual followup? What major gaps still remain? Finally, there needs to be an examination of the internal situation in Saudi Arabia. Currently, the Saudi Government is run by a small group of men in their seventies and eighties. What is likely to happen when they are gone? How secure is the regime now? What sort of government would be likely to emerge if the Royal Family lost their power? It would be premature to try to offer answers to these and the other key questions. What is clear is that our Government will need to put more pressure on Saudi leaders than the current administration has applied thus far. It also seems very likely the answers will have a dramatic effect for U.S. energy policy which currently perpetuates our dependence on foreign oil. My guess is that people in Pennsylvania, like Oregonians, think that just about the most red, white, and blue thing we can do for our country is to get a new energy policy. Certainly, as we go forward to look into the activities of the Saudis, a bipartisan effort to get a new energy policy is a key factor in ensuring our ability to protect our citizens at a dangerous time. In the coming weeks and months, I plan to examine this issue as a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee. I have asked our chairman, our very able chairman, Senator Rockefeller, to hold a closed hearing specifically dedicated to this topic, and one has been scheduled for this afternoon. It is time to bring to light the way in which Saudi oil money is fueling the fires of terrorism so people can actually see who is getting burned and what is necessary to protect the security and the well-being of Americans in a perilous world. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, it is not breaking news that the American health care system is broken, even though our country has scores of dedicated and talented health care providers. It isn't breaking news that Congress has ducked fixing health care since 1994. What should be breaking news is that for the first time in decades there is a genuine opportunity for Democrats and Republicans to work together to fix American health care. A few days ago in his State of the Union Address, the President put forward a health care reform proposal that focuses on changing the Federal Tax Code. Since then, leading Democratic and Republican economists have joined forces to point out how Federal health care tax rules benefit the most affluent among us, and subsidize inefficiency as well. For example, right now under the Federal Tax Code, a high-flying CEO can write off the cost on their Federal taxes of going out and getting a designer smile while a hard-working gal in a small hardware store in Montana, Oregon, or anywhere else in the country, gets virtually nothing. I am of the view that Democrats and Republicans should work together to change this inequity and make sure that all of our citizens have affordable, quality, private health care coverage with private sector choices--the way Members of Congress do. The Federal Tax Code and its policies have disproportionately rewarded the affluent. They came about because of what happened in the 1940s when there were wage and price controls. These policies might have worked for the 1940s, but they are clearly not right 60 years later. Democrats and Republicans can work together to change the Federal tax rules that grease the system and disproportionally reward the most affluent and subsidize inefficiency. In return for those on the Democratic side of the aisle supporting a change in Federal health tax rules and coverage through private sector choices, the President and Republicans should join with Democrats and independent health experts of all political philosophies who say to fix health care we have to cover everybody for essential benefits. What is very clear now on health care is if we do not cover everybody--and not for Cadillac coverage, but for the essentials--our country will always have a health care system where those who have no coverage have their costs transferred to people who do have coverage. Every night in Montana, Oregon, and elsewhere in our country we have folks in hospital emergency rooms because they have not been able to get good outpatient health care, and the costs for folks in hospital emergency rooms who cannot pay get transferred to people who can pay. Many health care experts have theorized that perhaps up to 20 percent of the premium paid by people who have coverage is because of the costs for caring for those without coverage. At this point in the debate, Democrats can say that Federal tax rules are inequitable with respect to health care and we can use private sector choices. My hope is Republicans will say to fix health care we have to have a system that covers everybody. Democrats and Republicans can come together to make that case. There are other areas where we can find common ground right now between the political parties on health care. For example, Democrats and Republicans in the Senate think we ought to give a broad berth to the States to innovate in the health care area. Surely what works in the State of Montana may not necessarily work in Florida, Iowa, or New York. They say, ``Let's give a broad berth to the States to show innovative approaches.'' Particularly Governor Schwarzenegger and Governor Romney deserve a lot of credit for being willing to lead at the State level. In my State, folks have some innovative ideas, as well. My guess is they do in Montana, elsewhere. We can take steps to promote them. I personally don't think the States can do it all because the States cannot solve problems they did not create. That is why we need to change the Federal health care tax rules. Because of the federal tax rules, the Federal Government is the big spender in health care. The States cannot do a lot about that. But surely, as part of the effort to bring Democrats and Republicans together, we can agree to make changes in the Federal health care tax care rules and we can agree to get everyone covered. We can also agree there is a lot of common ground between Democrats and Republicans, to give States the opportunity to innovate. Democrats and Republicans, as we look at the possibility of a coalition, can join together so we have health care rather than sick care. We do not do a lot to promote wellness and prevention in this country. Medicare shows that better than anything else. Medicare Part A will pay checks for thousands and thousands of dollars of hospital expenses. Medicare Part B, on the other hand, the part for outpatient services, hardly does anything to reward prevention and wellness. You can not even get a break on your premium--the Part B premium, they call it--if you help to hold down your blood pressure, cholesterol, stop smoking, and that sort of thing. Surely Democrats and Republicans can join hands to do more to promote prevention, and to have incentives for parents, for example, to get their kids involved in wellness. This would not be some kind of national nanny program where we have the Federal Government saying, we are going to watch the chip bowl, but sensible prevention policies on which Democrats and Republicans can agree. It also seems to me that Democrats and Republicans can join hands with respect to chronic health care and end of life health care. We know in the Medicare Program close to 5 percent of the people take about 50 percent of the health care dollars because those folks need chronic care and because of spending at the end of life. They need compassionate health care. We have not thought through policies that can bring both Democrats and Republicans together to deal with this area of health care where an enormous amount of the money is going. For example, to get Medicare's hospice benefits, right now seniors have to choose whether they are going to get curative care or hospice care. That makes no sense at all. Why should a senior have to give up the prospects of getting a cure for their particular illness in order to get hospice benefit? Let's not pit the hospice benefit against curative care. Let's have Democrats and Republicans work together in order to make changes that expand the options available for older people. The door is open right now. The State of the Union gave new visibility to the health care cause. Democrats, such as myself, who serve on the Committee on Finance, who will say these Federal health care tax rules are inequitable, can join hands with Republicans who will say we need to cover everybody and stop the cost shifting. The door is open right now if Democrats and Republicans will work together in a bipartisan basis. Some people are saying it can't be done. They are saying there is too much polarization on health care and other big issues. Let's talk about it, once again, when there is a Presidential campaign. I send a clear message on that point, as well. Of course, this country can put off fixing health care once more, as it has done again and again for 60 years--going back to Harry Truman in the 81st Congress. It was 1945 when he began to talk about fixing health care. I guess one can argue, let's put it off again and have another Presidential campaign where people go back and forth on this issue. However, I submit that whoever the new President is in 2009--and I am very excited about our Democratic candidates--no matter who is the new President--should address this issue. However if, heaven forbid, there is a terrorist attack early in the new Administration, health care would get put off once more. Perhaps we would go for several more years without talking about health care reform. We have had people working to fix health care in this country for years and years, people on both sides of the aisle. On our side of the aisle, we have Senator Kennedy. No one has championed the cause of fixing health care for as many years as passionately as Senator Kennedy. Republicans have worked very hard for health care reform, as well. I hope this question of health care reform is not somehow deferred once again until 2009. There is a broad consensus of what needs to be done. I outlined four or five areas this morning, starting with changing the Federal health care tax rules and making sure there are good private sector choices for Americans, getting everyone covered, and emphasizing prevention and wellness. That alone would be a good basis for Democrats and Republicans to start in. Clearly, a system that was created in the 1940s ought to be modernized in 2007. As I pointed out, the system that came about in the 1940s was a historical accident. There were wage and price controls and there was no way to get health care to working families other than to say, maybe the employers will cover it. Today our businesses are up against global competitors that have their governments pick up their health care bill. The combination of the disadvantage our businesses face, the huge escalation of costs, the significant increase in chronic illness, and our rapidly aging population means the current system is not sustainable. It is not sustainable and that is why we need to act. I am so pleased to see the Presiding Officer in the chair, a new Senator from Montana, who has lots of good ideas on health care and has campaigned on them. I know he and many on both sides of the aisle want to fix the system. That is what we got an election certificate to do, to work together on the most important issues, not put it off for another couple of years and have another Presidential campaign. We need to sort it out right now. The American people know we ought to have a new focus, on prevention rather than sick care. We can work on that now. The American people know a lot of the States have innovative approaches. We can help them build on it. The American people know the tax system in the health care area disproportionately favors the most affluent and does not give a break to the working person and it ought to be changed. These are the reasons why both sides ought to join hands to do that. The time to fix health care is now. There are a variety of proposals that have been put before the Congress. I have not even mentioned my legislation this morning, the Healthy Americans Act, based on many of the principles I have discussed today. I am not wedded to every provision or every part of it. It is a piece of legislation that can bring folks together. When I introduced it, Andy Stern, the president of the Service Employees International Union, 1.8 million members, was there, but so was Steve Burd, the CEO of Safeway, with over 200,000 employees. So was Bob Beall, the CEO of a company with 400 people. So was a member of the National Federation of Independent Businesses who was from Oregon. He spoke for himself, not for the group. He employs eight people. All of these employers said that the legislation would work for them. Now it is up to us in the Senate. It is up to us, with the door open, to get Democrats and Republicans to come together. I certainly have not agreed with all the details of the President's proposal, but he has given some new visibility to the cause. All sides ought to say, let's get going, let's not wait for another campaign for President to go forward. Let us do our job now. There is much to work with that can bring both political parties together to fix American health care. I will be spending a lot of my waking hours on that in the days ahead. I look forward to working with both Democrats and Republicans in the Senate to get it done. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. I thank my colleagues for their courtesy.