Ron Wyden

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I want to come back again to the argument I made earlier. The Senator from North Carolina said the FBI would have to wait around if there was something that really had the well-being of the American people at stake. That is simply inaccurate. In the USA FREEDOM Act, I was able to add a provision I feel very strongly about, which says if the FBI thinks the security and well-being of the American people are on the line, the FBI can move immediately to collect all the information we have been talking about. So there is no waiting. There is no dawdling under the amendment we put in the FREEDOM Act. The government can go get that information immediately and come back and then settle up later with the judge. Frankly, that was something I felt extremely strongly about because I wanted it understood that there is not a debate about privacy versus security. This is about ensuring that we have both, and that is why that emergency provision is so important. My colleague made mention of the fact that the FBI would be waiting around if the country's safety and well-being were on the line. No way--not because of the specific language in the USA FREEDOM Act I offered and my colleague supported. This is about ensuring that the American people can have both security and liberty. We have heard the lone-wolf provision referred to. That was extended for 4 years in the USA FREEDOM Act. I supported that as well. So what we are talking about today is not making the country safer but threatening our liberty. And I did draw a contrast between this and the issue with respect to guns. Our colleagues said we ought to have due process as it relates to guns. I certainly support the idea of due process, but it shouldn't be a double standard--we are going to have due process there, and we are not going to have due process as it relates to these national security letters.

Mr. WYDEN. If I could have 10 additional seconds, and I appreciate my colleague's courtesy.

Mr. WYDEN. The amendment gives the FBI field office authority to scoop up all this digital material without judicial oversight. That is a mistake. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I say to my colleague that I just walked in and I am prepared to speak on another subject, whenever it is convenient for my colleague.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I believe the next vote will take place on the amendment offered by the senior Senator from Arizona that would allow for the issuance of what are called national security letters, or NSLs, which are administrative subpoenas, and there will be an additional provision on what is called lone wolf. I am going to direct most of my comments for colleagues on the national security letters because the lone wolf provision was reauthorized for another 4 years as part of the USA FREEDOM Act. I want colleagues to understand that this tool, which certainly has been debated, while never used--it wouldn't have applied to the Orlando or San Bernardino cases--I want colleagues to understand that it is the law of the land today, and in the USA FREEDOM Act, it was extended for another 4 years. What I would like to do, though, is focus my remarks on the amendment from the senior Senator from Arizona as it relates to national security letters. In effect, what the senior Senator from Arizona is seeking to do is add back a provision that the administration of George W. Bush-- not exactly an administration people would accuse of being soft on terror--the senior Senator from Arizona is seeking to add back this provision that was rejected by the administration of George W. Bush. Here is how the amendment offered by the senior Senator from Arizona would work. Under his amendment, which we will vote on tomorrow, national security letters, which are called NSLs, could be issued by any FBI field office to demand records from a company without going to a judge or without any other oversight whatsoever. So let's repeat that because what colleagues have wanted to know is exactly what this would cover. The McCain amendment would allow for the government to demand email records, text message logs, Web browsing history, and certain types of other location information without any court oversight whatsoever. As I have indicated, this had been on the books for a number of years, and the administration of George W. Bush said it was unnecessary--in effect, that it was unnecessarily intrusive. In addition, since the Bush administration acted, I want to make mention of the fact that in the USA FREEDOM Act, the Congress adopted something I have been working on for a number of years--since really 2013--to, in effect, give the government additional authority in the case of emergencies. In other words, I have always felt the Fourth Amendment and the warrant process was something that was very special in our country, but we live, of course, in a very dangerous time. We are all concerned about the security and the safety and the well-being of the people we represent. So I said, in section 102 of the FREEDOM Act, let's make sure the FBI has all the authorities necessary to protect the American people in the instance of an emergency. So the USA FREEDOM Act gave the FBI the authority to demand all the records they deemed necessary and then, in effect, after the fact--after the fact--come back and settle up with the court. So unless you are opposed to court oversight after the fact, unless you are opposed to court oversight altogether, there is no reason to support the amendment offered by the senior Senator from Arizona. A number of colleagues have also asked about the history of these national security letters. There is a long history of abuse and misuse, a long and very undistinguished record of abusive practices. The Justice Department inspector general has issued four separate reports over the past few years--four separate reports--documenting a number of serious problems. The inspector general found that data collected pursuant to the national security letters was stored indefinitely and used to gain access to private information in cases that weren't relevant to an FBI investigation, and the national security letters were used to collect tens of thousands of records at a time. Some have also made mention of the fact that a company that gets one of these national security letters could challenge it in court. That is technically right. Big companies that have the resources can challenge them. The small companies invariably say they can't afford to do that. So, again, no oversight. No oversight--particularly striking given the fact that, as I have noted, in the FREEDOM Act--something I felt very strongly about--we gave the government additional authority in the instance of emergencies. So we have now, by virtue of the amendment we will vote on tomorrow from my friend and colleague--we certainly have agreed on plenty of issues over the years. This is one where we see it differently. You have something the Bush administration rejected. The administration of George W. Bush--hardly one that we would say is sympathetic to the idea of weakening the government's stance against terror--they thought this was a mistake. They thought the amendment that there will be an effort to add back in was a mistake, and it was taken out. This would not have beefed up the fight against what happened in San Bernardino and Orlando. The FBI says it would help them with paperwork. I am not going to quibble with that. I have great respect for the FBI. But we are going to abandon court oversight in an area where the inspector general has documented abuses because it is convenient? Colleagues, I will close with this: It is a dangerous time. If you sit on the Intelligence Committee, as I have for a number of years, you know that is not in question. The American people want policies that promote their security and their liberty. That is what we are aiming for. What is being advanced in this amendment is an idea that really doesn't do either. It doesn't advance the security and well-being of the American people, and it certainly erodes their liberties. So I hope tomorrow, when we have the vote on this amendment, that colleagues will look at the history. It was rejected by the Bush administration. Now we have emergency authority, I say to my colleagues, for the government to get information when it needs it. After the fact, the government can come back and settle up. I think this amendment is a very substantial mistake. There has been a long history documented by the inspector general of abuses with these national security letters. I urge my colleagues tomorrow to oppose this amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, the senior Senator from Arizona--whom, as I mentioned, I have worked with often--has said, in effect, if you oppose his amendment, you are interested in privacy. The reality is, my interest is in privacy and security. I believe it is possible to have both, and I want to explain how that is the case. Something I worked on for a long time, the USA FREEDOM Act, we included section 102. Section 102 very explicitly said that if the government--if the FBI, in a situation like Orlando or San Bernardino, for example--if the government believed it needed information immediately--immediately--the government could get the information and then go back to the court after the fact. In effect, after the government had been able to get the information of its own volition, settle up immediately so as to protect the American people. This debate is about are we going to have policies that advance both our security and our liberty. I have felt very strongly--I see my seatmate, the distinguished ranking member of the Appropriations Committee. We sit next to each other on the Intelligence Committee. We talk about these issues very often. As part of the USA FREEDOM Act, I pushed very hard to make sure the government had those emergency authorities. This is a dangerous time. Nobody disputes that. If you have been on the Intelligence Committee, as Senator Mikulski and I have been for so many years, that is not in question. This is a dangerous time. No. 1, the question is, Are we going to have both security and liberty? In my view, that is where the amendment from the senior Senator from Arizona comes up short. No. 2, the Senator from Arizona has said the problem he seeks to correct was just a typo, kind of a clerical error--not even close. The debate back in 1993--we have the record, the House, the Senate, the FBI. It was very carefully crafted in a way to ensure that there would not be abuse in the digital area. When you look at that specifically, that is very clear. This was not a typo. This was carefully crafted--House, Senate, FBI--in 1993. When my friend from Arizona says it was a typo--not even close. I hope colleagues will avail themselves of our offer to look at the record. Right now, nobody from the government, the FBI, has said, if it had the power the Senator from Arizona seeks to give the government--nobody in the intelligence field or in the government said it would have prevented Orlando. The fact is, the government has the authority, the emergency authority, and it was something I pushed very hard for. It was right at the core of my belief that we ought to be pushing for both security and liberty at a dangerous time and that the two are not mutually exclusive. So we added to the USA FREEDOM Act that emergency authority for the government. It is also true, the administration of George W. Bush specifically rejected the idea the Senator from Arizona is calling for. They specifically said this has created problems. There have been four separate inspector general analyses that support that. As we continue this discussion, I hope colleagues will see that we ought to keep the focus on both security and liberty. That is why the emergency authorities we got in the USA FREEDOM Act are so important. They are intact. They can be used for any situation--Orlando, San Bernardino, any other--that the government, the FBI, feels the security and safety of the American people are at stake. With respect to the lone-wolf provision, which I heard my colleague mention, we reauthorized that for 4 years in the USA FREEDOM Act. I supported that as well. I just hope colleagues will think through the implications of the amendment from the Senator from Arizona because under what he is talking about, a national security letter, what is called an NSL, can be issued by any FBI field office to demand records from a company without going to a judge. To support this, in effect, you basically are saying you don't support oversight, you don't support court oversight, because we have given the court and the government the ability to move quickly. I hope tomorrow we don't conclude that the FBI ought to be able to demand email records, text message logs, Web-browsing history, and certain types of information without court oversight. The Senator from Arizona said: Well, you are not going to get all the content of those emails. That is true, but the fact is, in a lot of instances, when you know who emailed whom, you know a whole lot about that person. If somebody emailed the psychiatrist four times in 48 hours, you know a whole lot about the person. You don't have to see all of the content of the emails. Colleagues, we will discuss this some more, but I hope Senators will see this is about ensuring there is both security and liberty. The government has not said or intimated that if they had the power the Senator from Arizona seeks to put back--that the Bush administration rejected--the government has not said or intimated this would have prevented the horrific tragedy in Orlando. I hope my colleagues will oppose the McCain amendment tomorrow. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. WYDEN. I appreciate my colleague yielding, and I am a very, very strong supporter of her amendment because I think the idea of adding more resources is absolutely essential. As I look at these cases--and she and I have talked about this on the Select Committee on Intelligence--we know that the workforce is aging in the intelligence community. We are going to need more dollars for the personnel we are going to need and certainly a lot of resources in a variety of areas. Is that my colleague's intention, to make sure we get the resources to, in effect, get out in front of these upcoming threats?

Mr. WYDEN. If my colleague will continue to yield, just briefly, what my colleague has stated--and I strongly agree with--is that she is trying to assure that the resources are there for the future. I am not going to drag my colleague into the earlier discussion, but what I am concerned about, and have been, is that the Senator from Arizona is relitigating the past. In effect, when the Bush administration took away the power because it was too intrusive, he wanted to go back to it. But apropos of my colleague, isn't that the heart of her case--that she is looking to the future--FBI resources, resources to deal with hate crimes, resources to deal with prevention? It seems to me she is trying to lay out a plan for the future.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to honor a great educator in my home State. John Niebergall of Sherwood, OR, has been recognized as a White House ``Champion of Change.'' John's tremendous recognition and White House visit is well deserved. As an educator for more than 30 years, he has provided so many students at Sherwood High School with hands-on learning opportunities that prepare them for a 21st century career after graduation. On May 4, I had the opportunity to visit Sherwood High School to witness firsthand the remarkable projects students were turning out in John's Mobile Makerspace. Students enrolled in his career and technical education programs--otherwise known as CTE courses--showed me their expertise handling a laser-cutter and a 3-D printer. John's students also have access to a welding shop and woodworking shop, where one student showed me a guitar he was building. It was clear to see that students participating in John's classes were excited about their work and motivated to be creative in the workspace. Research has shown that students enrolled in CTE courses graduate from high school at a higher rate, and students enrolled in these courses are more likely to show up to class. After getting a tour of John's engineering classes and woodshop classes, it is no surprise to me that Sherwood High School is a high-performing school. The connection between good CTE programs and student success could not be clearer. I am committed to supporting programs like the ones John teaches in Sherwood and will continue to do all that I can to provide Federal and State-funded career and technical education courses at more schools in my home State. His model can--and should--be replicated around the country. That is why I was thrilled to take a ride in his ``Fab-Lab'' mobile trailer that was full of computers and manufacturing equipment. He takes this mobile trailer on the road to connect with other CTE teachers in Oregon. When teachers like John collaborate with other educators, more students benefit. As part of the ``Champions of Change'' program, the White House recognizes Americans who are making positive changes in their communities. There is no doubt John is doing just that. I commend John for teaching a diverse course load that exposes students to the many different types of CTE fields they could pursue after high school. To finish, I want to send a big thank you to everyone at Sherwood High School for allowing me to visit. And I want to send a big congratulations to John for this tremendous recognition. I look forward to working with him to promote Career and Technical Education programs in Oregon and across the country.

Mr. WYDEN

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

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, in the aftermath of the horrific tragedy in Orlando, Americans are understandably concerned about whether law enforcement and intelligence officials have the tools they need to keep our people safe. I share these concerns and have for quite some time. In 2013, I proposed that the government be authorized to obtain phone, email, and other records immediately in emergency situations and then after the fact come back for court review. That proposal I made in 2013 became law as part of the USA FREEDOM Act--it is section 102 of the USA FREEDOM Act--and as of today, that legislation I authored gives the FBI more authority to move immediately when they believe it is essential to protect the safety and well-being of Americans and our families. I don't take a backseat to anybody when it comes to supporting efforts that are going to do everything possible to make Americans safer in their communities. So right now--and this is so often the case after a tragedy--when Americans want to be safer and they want their liberties, all too often proposals are advanced that in so many instances don't do much of either. It is for that reason that I have come to the floor to express my concern about the sweeping surveillance amendment that was proposed this morning by the senior Senator from Texas. In my view, it is important for colleagues to see that this proposal would dramatically and unnecessarily expand the government's ability to conduct surveillance of Americans without court oversight. In my judgment, it would not make our country any safer. The real implications are that it could significantly undermine the constitutional rights of law-abiding Americans, largely to save some paperwork for law enforcement officials. As was described on the Senate floor this morning, this amendment would authorize individual FBI field offices to demand Americans' email and Internet records simply by issuing what is called a national security letter, which means there really is no court oversight whatsoever. This authority currently exists for phone records, and law enforcement officials have repeatedly suggested that it would be convenient for email and Internet records to be collected in the same way. The FBI has not suggested that they are currently unable to obtain these records in counterterror investigations. Law enforcement officials have simply been arguing that it would be more convenient to operate without judicial oversight. I find this position very troubling because I don't see anything in the writings of the Founding Fathers that says convenience alone should justify a dramatic erosion of the constitutional rights of law-abiding Americans. It is important to understand that this sweeping expansion of surveillance authorities is not necessary. If FBI officials have reason to suspect an individual is connected to terrorism or espionage, they already have the ability to access that person's email and Internet records by simply obtaining an order in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. These orders can be issued in secret and require relatively little evidence. The FBI just needs to assert that the records are ``relevant to an investigation,'' and that is not difficult to do. But requiring the approval of an independent judge provides an important chapter against the abuse or misuse of this authority. By contrast, national security letters are not reviewed by a judge unless a company that receives one attempts to challenge it. As I indicated earlier this afternoon, I appreciate the FBI's interest in obtaining records about potential suspects quickly, but my view is that Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court judges in the typical situation are very capable of reviewing and approving requests for court orders in a timely fashion, and that is why I made mention of it. If the government thinks that there is an emergency situation and that time is so critical, the government can use that section of the USA FREEDOM Act that I authored, Section 102, to obtain records immediately in an emergency situation and then go seek court review after the fact. As I indicated, I have been supportive of this for quite some time, but I think giving the government the authority to move in emergency situations is very different from giving the government substantial new surveillance authority just because some officials don't like doing paperwork. If the FBI's own process for reviewing orders is too slow, then the appropriate solution is administrative reforms, not a major expansion of government surveillance authorities. While this amendment would not apply to the text of emails, it would allow the FBI a wide variety of information, including records of whom individuals exchange emails with and when, as well as individuals' log- in history, IP addresses, and Internet browsing history. This sort of surveillance can clearly reveal an extensive amount of information about individual Americans. Our Founding Fathers rightly argued that these kinds of intrusive searchs ought to be approved by independent judges. At this point, I believe it is worth noting that President George W. Bush's administration reached the same conclusion that I have described this afternoon. In November of 2008, the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel advised the FBI that national security letters could only be used to obtain certain types of records, and this list did not include electronic communication records. The FBI has, unfortunately, not adhered to this guidance and has at times continued to issue national security letters for electronic communications records. A number of companies that have received these overly broad national security letters have rightfully challenged them, as I have indicated, as improper. Broadening the national security letter statute to include electronic communication transaction records would be a significant expansion of warrantless surveillance authority. Unfortunately, the government's track record with its existing national security letter authorities includes a substantial amount of abuse and misuse. These problems were extensively documented by the Justice Department's inspector general in 2007, 2008, 2010, and 2014. In my judgment, it would be reckless to expand this particular surveillance authority when the government has so frequently failed to use its existing authorities responsibly. In 2013, President Obama's surveillance review group looked at the national security letter statute. This group included a number of distinguished national security leaders, including former White House counterterrorism adviser Richard Clarke and former Acting CIA Director Mike Morell. They determined--and I think what is so noteworthy is that at a time when the President assembled practically an NBA All-Star team of counterterror leaders, this group determined that national security letter authority ought to be narrowed, not expanded. They were making a judgment to counter to the senior Senator from Texas, and they felt they ought to go the other way and be more cautious about how it is used. These leading national security officials, the names of whom I have just given, stated in their report that national security letters have been, in their view, highly controversial and noted that there have been ``serious compliance issues on the part of the government.'' They concluded the following: ``For all the well-established reasons for requiring neutral and detached judges to decide when government investigators may invade an individual's privacy''--their words and not mine--``there is a strong argument that [national security letters] should not be issued by the FBI.'' National security letters was what the description of the issue was all about. In the judgment of these experts, the government should seek the approval of a judge the way our Founding Fathers intended. I want it understood that I would strongly oppose the surveillance amendment filed this morning. My view is that it would erode our core constitutional rights without making our country safer. All over the country right now, Americans are asking what can be done to make our country safer. This morning, for example, we had the CIA Director, Mr. Brennan, in the Intelligence Committee, and I pointed out that one of the things that help Americans be as safe as possible is strong encryption for their smartphones. Those smartphones have people's different transactions, such as medical and financial information. Their whole life is in those smartphones. If you weaken strong encryption and require companies--as several of our colleagues want to do--to build back doors into these digital products, Americans are going to be less safe. For example, a number of the smartphones have a location tracker so parents can keep tabs on their youngster. Well, if you weaken encryption and weaken the location tracker, you are pretty much giving a gift to pedophiles because it will be easy to track youngsters as a result of weakening encryption. We had a discussion about it this morning. The comment I was concerned about in particular this morning was when I said ``Hey, if we weaken encryption in the United States, the reality is that terrorists, hackers, and others will go overseas, where there are hundreds of products with strong encryption,'' it was the view of the CIA Director that that was ``theoretical.'' So I was forced to correct that later in the course of the day to say that some of the leading experts in cyber security said that this is not theoretical. The reality is that there are hundreds of products overseas with strong encryption. So think about that one. What we would be doing if we weakened encryption is we would be adopting a policy that would leave our people less secure and their liberties more at risk right at the time when they are saying, after the horrific tragedy in Orlando, that they want better policies to promote their safety and make sure their liberties are kept. This is a debate we are going to have in several forms. We will have them in committee rooms and on the floor of the Senate. I just want it understood that the reason I am opposing what the senior Senator from Texas talked about today is that I think it flies right in the face of what I have described. It does nothing to make us safer, and it puts our liberties at risk, much as the distinguished panel that was put together by the President--all these outstanding counterterror officials--said when they expressed concern about the whole future of national security letters. There is a way to do this right, and I would submit that is what we did in Section 102 of the USA FREEDOM Act. It was something I had talked about with the President on several occasions. I am willing to say what I said but not what the President said. I have repeatedly said to the government that if the government doesn't have enough authority in emergency situations to protect the American people, I will use my ability as a senior member of the Intelligence Committee to make sure they have that authority. We did that in the USA FREEDOM Act. The government can move immediately to collect phone and email records and then come back later to go through the court review process. That is the kind of model we ought to use, not what we heard about this morning from the senior Senator from Texas that would expand government surveillance authority, put our liberties at risk, and not make our country safer. I am sure this will be a topic of extensive discussion on the Senate floor next week. I just wanted to take this opportunity to outline my views on the topic. With that, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WYDEN

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

Mr. WYDEN. I thank my colleague, Senator Murphy. I thank him, Senator Booker, and Senator Blumenthal for what they have done today. Here is the bottom line for me, Senator Murphy and colleagues. Mass shootings are now happening like clockwork in America: Thurston, Columbine, Blacksburg, Tucson, Newtown, Aurora, Charleston, Roseburg, and Orlando. Communities are being torn apart like clockwork by unspeakable gun violence. In this building we come together now for moments of silence honoring the victims of these shootings like clockwork, and, like clockwork, this Congress does nothing about it. When I was home last month, I visited Umpqua Community College, just outside of Roseburg, which was the site of a horrendous shooting 8 months ago--one of the deadliest school shootings in our Nation's history. What I saw at Umpqua Community College, what I heard from those at the school and the families in the community is, I am sure, a lot like what my friend from Connecticut hears about how the suffering doesn't go away. The 1-year anniversary of the shooting in Charleston, SC, is coming up soon. I am quite sure it is the same way for people in South Carolina. The trauma, the process of mourning, rebuilding, and then trying to find a way somehow, some way to move forward from the enveloping grief is a horrendous experience and a common experience now that so many of our communities share. The reality is the trauma doesn't just vanish into the vapor. The news cameras are eventually going to leave Orlando, just like they left Roseburg. The bullet holes in the nightclub will get patched up. The families and the friends of the victims will try to live their lives the best they can, but it is going to be such a difficult, difficult task for the LGBTQ community in Orlando. But the trauma--the trauma--isn't vanishing. So there is no perfect solution, but trauma ought to be followed up in a very concrete way with some specific constructive steps that begin to lay out an answer. It just seems to me that in the Senate and the Congress, the idea of following up with more moments of silence, with more inaction, just isn't enough. There are common steps, practical steps the Congress can take now. Those who have argued that the only possible response to the shooting in Orlando can come in a war zone thousands of miles away are looking for excuses not to do something--not to do something meaningful here at home. There are steps that can be taken now to curb this violence. It won't stop every crime--a number of the ideas have been discussed before--but the victims of the shootings are owed a response. First, I know my colleagues have mentioned this already this afternoon, but Senator Feinstein has put forward a proposal to close the dangerous terrorist gun loophole. I thought that was a sensible step--common sense. People shouldn't look at that as a partisan issue. Americans want to know why anyone would vote to allow individuals suspected of terrorist ties and motivations to purchase regulated firearms. Next, close the loopholes. Close the loopholes in the background check. It is way past time to do that and to stop allowing the purchase of a gun online or at a gun show without a background check. Certainly, the background checks themselves have to be substantially improved. There are holes that ought to be plugged, including those that keep guns in the hands of somebody who has been a convicted domestic abuser. I am not talking about being charged or something that is speculative. We are talking about a convicted domestic abuser. Once and for all the Congress ought to close the pipeline for illegal guns, straw purchases, and gun trafficking. These ought to be Federal crimes. The Senator from Connecticut and I have also been strong advocates of beefing up the research into gun violence. There has been a prohibition on doing that. Say that one to yourself--a prohibition on doing research into gun violence. It just defies common sense. It makes no sense at all to block the Centers for Disease Control from gathering information that can help our communities and our families be safe. I am just going to wrap up by getting personal for a moment. My late brother suffered from serious mental illness. Senator Murphy, not a day went by--not a day went by--when I wasn't worried that my brother, who was a schizophrenic, would be out on the streets and would either hurt himself or would hurt somebody else. That was the case with my family. It is time to establish once and for all a system through which individuals who are found to be a potential threat to themselves or others can get the treatment they need. I see my colleague from Michigan here. She has championed this effort year after year after year. I am not going to recap the proposals. Some of them have been discussed at length here on the floor. But a majority of Americans finds these kinds of commonsense gun safety measures not to be ones that infringe on the rights of responsible gun owners or violate the Second Amendment or even come close to it. A majority of gun owners think these proposals make sense. So this is what I would like to ask my colleague from Connecticut, in terms of an update, because my colleague from Connecticut has been a leader in this effort. Senator Feinstein's proposal, of course, is designed to prevent those on the watch list from buying guns. Numbers have been thrown around repeatedly about the number of people this would actually impact. I know the General Accounting Office has looked into this. Can the Senator tell me how many people on this watch list have been able to buy a gun?

Mr. WYDEN. I thank my colleague, and I will just wrap up by way of saying that it seems to me that what has been learned here is that while the investigation goes on, there may have been a terrorist attack, there may have been a hate-inspired attack. My question is this: Aren't the steps I have outlined here today commonsense, practical steps, whether it is a hate-inspired attack? We have seen the human toll that discrimination takes against those who are targeted on the basis of hate. We have seen what it means to families who have been struck by terror. But aren't the steps that have been outlined here by you and colleagues on the floor--Senator Casey, with his very valuable proposal--commonsense legislative efforts that make sense whether this has been primarily a terror attack or a hate-inspired attack?

Mr. WYDEN. I see colleagues waiting, and I thank the Senator.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Southeastern Oregon Mineral Withdrawal and Economic Preservation and Development Act to provide a boost to the rural Oregon economy and to protect the world-renowned Southeastern Oregon landscape. I am pleased to introduce this bill with my colleague from Oregon, Senator Jeff Merkley. In Southeastern Oregon, the high desert landscape is home to hundreds of millions of acres of public lands that have hosted cattle ranching and visitors and locals for generations. These lands are supported by Oregonians who grew up there and who rely on them as a long-time linchpin for their local economies. The equation is simple: Healthy public lands mean healthy economies in this part of Oregon. And outside threats to those lands place local economies in peril. I understand that companies, including foreign companies, want to come into Southeastern Oregon to explore for minerals, including uranium. This is deeply troubling because these mining operations are dangerous--to the existing local economies as well as to the environment, over all. By potentially hamstringing the creation of jobs in agriculture and recreation, and stunting the growth of small businesses, blocking mining in these areas protects this local potential. Senator Merkley and I are introducing this bill because the risks posed by mineral exploration to the communities and their way of life are far too great to roll the dice. Not only does our bill protect more than 2 million acres from mineral exploration and extraction, it creates and expands programs to support Southeastern Oregon communities so they can grow their economies and build on their strengths. These programs include grants to develop modern and efficient water storage systems to keep livestock out of rivers and streams and reduce the need to transport water. They also include infrastructure grants to improve roads for farmers and agriculture-related businesses, as well as job training for veterans and young people get started in agriculture. Finally, our bill would address broader economic issues by establishing an Agriculture Center of Excellence to expand local agriculture research, providing additional assistance to local and rural firefighters, improving water and wastewater systems, and deploying broadband service and cellphone towers. With these investments in Southeastern Oregon, communities can create jobs, train a new generation of workers, and modernize their economies. All those gains can be achieved while protecting Malheur County's natural landscape and ensuring that the historic uses of the land can continue without interruption from harmful mining operations.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Southeastern Oregon Mineral Withdrawal and Economic Preservation and Development Act to provide a boost to the rural Oregon economy and to protect the world-renowned Southeastern Oregon landscape. I am pleased to introduce this bill with my colleague from Oregon, Senator Jeff Merkley. In Southeastern Oregon, the high desert landscape is home to hundreds of millions of acres of public lands that have hosted cattle ranching and visitors and locals for generations. These lands are supported by Oregonians who grew up there and who rely on them as a long-time linchpin for their local economies. The equation is simple: Healthy public lands mean healthy economies in this part of Oregon. And outside threats to those lands place local economies in peril. I understand that companies, including foreign companies, want to come into Southeastern Oregon to explore for minerals, including uranium. This is deeply troubling because these mining operations are dangerous--to the existing local economies as well as to the environment, over all. By potentially hamstringing the creation of jobs in agriculture and recreation, and stunting the growth of small businesses, blocking mining in these areas protects this local potential. Senator Merkley and I are introducing this bill because the risks posed by mineral exploration to the communities and their way of life are far too great to roll the dice. Not only does our bill protect more than 2 million acres from mineral exploration and extraction, it creates and expands programs to support Southeastern Oregon communities so they can grow their economies and build on their strengths. These programs include grants to develop modern and efficient water storage systems to keep livestock out of rivers and streams and reduce the need to transport water. They also include infrastructure grants to improve roads for farmers and agriculture-related businesses, as well as job training for veterans and young people get started in agriculture. Finally, our bill would address broader economic issues by establishing an Agriculture Center of Excellence to expand local agriculture research, providing additional assistance to local and rural firefighters, improving water and wastewater systems, and deploying broadband service and cellphone towers. With these investments in Southeastern Oregon, communities can create jobs, train a new generation of workers, and modernize their economies. All those gains can be achieved while protecting Malheur County's natural landscape and ensuring that the historic uses of the land can continue without interruption from harmful mining operations.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, we are working on the very important Defense bill, but I just wanted to take a few minutes to discuss another topic. For some time, with the support of the Senate majority leader, Mr. McConnell, Senator Merkley and Senator Paul and I have all been trying to change Federal law so farmers across the country can secure the green light to grow hemp in America. About a year ago, I came to the floor of the Senate with a basket of hemp products to highlight that this is a particularly important time in the debate--a time in history when we have kind of reflected on what this issue has been about. I have talked about how hemp products are made in this country, sold in this country, and consumed in our country, but they are not 100-percent American products. They can't be fully red, white, and blue products because the law says the hemp used to make them cannot be grown on a large-scale basis here at home. Another year has gone by since the majority leader, Senator Merkley, Senator Paul, and I teamed up, and unfortunately industrial hemp continues to be on the controlled substances list. Because of that unjustified status, hard-working farmers in Oregon and across our country have been deprived of the opportunity and benefits of a crop that has enormous economic potential--all because there has been this misinterpretation that in some way this is affiliated with marijuana. Industrial hemp and marijuana come from the same plant species. Someone could say they have a similar look, but they are, in fact, very different in key ways. First and foremost, industrial hemp does not have the psychoactive properties of marijuana. You would have about as much luck getting high by smoking cotton from a T-shirt as you would by smoking hemp. In my view, the hemp ban looks like a case of illegality for the sake of illegality. Four Members of the United States Senate, including the Senate majority leader, want to bring an end to this anti-hemp stigma that has, in effect, been codified in the law. We have talked about a whole host of hemp products--foods, soap, lotion supplements, hemp milk, and you can even use a hemp product to seal the lumber in a deck. If you just look at the variety of products--the kinds of products I have shown here before--you can certainly see the ingenuity of American producers. You see a growing demand of American consumers for hemp products. My view is our hard-working farmers ought to have the opportunity to meet that demand. Unfortunately, 100 percent of the hemp used in the kinds of products I brought to the floor have to be imported from other countries. So this ban on hemp is not anti-drug policy, it is anti-farmer policy. I have held this belief. I remember going to a Costco at home, when my wife Nancy was pregnant with our third child, and I saw there were hemp products available there at the local Costco, and I announced what was going to be a guiding principle of mine on this; that is, if you can buy it at a local supermarket, the American farmer ought to be able to grow it. Quaint idea, but I think if you walk through a Costco or any other store, you say to yourself: Must be pretty exasperating for American farmers to not have an opportunity to be part of generating that set of jobs associated with the ag sector because the jobs are coming from people overseas. There has been a bit of progress. The 2014 farm bill puts the first cracks in the Federal ban. It okayed growth research projects led by universities and agriculture departments in States such as Oregon and Kentucky that take a smarter approach to hemp. These projects have proven successful. Farmers are ready to grow hemp, but the first cracks in the Federal ban do not go far enough, and these projects are still just tied up, tied up, and tied up in various spools of redtape. In my view, what is needed is a legislative solution. So what we now have, in addition to the four of us--the Senators from Kentucky, the Senators from Oregon--is a bipartisan group of 12 Senators on the Industrial Hemp Farming Act. Once and for all, what we would say is, as a matter of law, let's remove hemp from the schedule I controlled substances list and give a green light to farmers from one end of the country to another who believe they would like to have a chance putting people to work growing hemp. I urge my colleagues to reflect on the history of this time, to learn more about the safe and versatile crop and the great potential it holds to giving a boost to American agriculture and our domestic economy. This is a bipartisan bill. The Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell; my colleague from Oregon, Senator Merkley; Senator McConnell's colleague from Kentucky, Rand Paul--the four of us, both Senators from Oregon, both Senators from Kentucky--say this is common sense. Twelve Members of the Senate are on board. It is time to turn this into law and give our hard-working farmers--and I note the Presiding Officer knows a bit about farming--I want to give our farmers another opportunity to generate profit and revenue for their important enterprises in America, and I hope my colleagues will support the legislation. With that, Madam President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to discuss the Presidential Tax Transparency Act--legislation that I have authored with Senators Warren, Bennet, Kaine, Baldwin, and Boxer. The reason I proposed this legislation is that ever since Watergate, it has been routine for Democratic and Republican Presidential nominees to release their tax returns. In effect, this has been the norm; this has been the standard operating procedure for almost four decades. That is because the American people expect transparency when it comes to a Presidential candidate's actions and values. They are running for the highest office in our land. They are running to be Commander in Chief for the most powerful Nation in the history of the world. When transparency is the overwhelming expectation of the American people regarding the Presidency, my view is it ought to be the law. We are in the midst of a Presidential election. The nominating conventions are weeks away. One of the candidates who has become his party's presumptive nominee has thus far refused to release his tax returns. In my view, this is a clean break from decades of traditions in our elections. It is a rebuke of the overwhelming majority of Americans, including a majority of Republicans, who are demanding openness and honesty from their Presidential candidates of both political parties on this issue. The reason is that tax returns give the American people a lot of straightforward, honest answers. It is not just about what rate you pay; it is about whether you even pay taxes. Do you give to charity? Are you abusing loopholes at the expense of hard-working middle-class families? Do you keep your money offshore? The fact is the tax return shines a light on your financial integrity. It will show if a person is trying to game the system, for example, by having their company pay for personal vacations on a private jet. Certainly, that is something far removed from the reaches of most hard-working families. My view has been that running for President is pretty much like a job interview. Every candidate has to stand up before the public and show that they have the temperament, the background, and the character to lead our wonderful country and be Commander in Chief. I believe that after decades of tradition, releasing tax returns is a big part of the process. When it comes to a candidate's financial background in taxes, I don't think the public should have to take somebody's word for it or just accept the kind of boasting you see on some of these shows that get wide viewership. The public has a right to know the facts, and the public has a right to know the truth. The proposal that my colleagues and I have proposed is pretty simple. It says that within 15 days of becoming the nominee at the party conventions, the candidates would be required to release at least 3 years of tax returns. If a nominee stonewalls the law and refuses, then the Treasury Secretary would share the returns with the Federal Election Commission, and that Commission would make them public online. There would be an opportunity as well for redactions, which, in effect, are changes when appropriate. When Presidents nominate individuals for Cabinet seats and executive branch jobs within the jurisdiction of the Finance Committee--the Treasury Secretary, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Social Security--those nominees all submit 3 years of tax returns for the committee to review. When there is a need and where it is appropriate, information from those returns is made public. Remember, that is the standard for people who would serve under the President of the United States. In my view, the Commander in Chief ought to be required to do better. The fact is, nominees have traditionally released a lot more than 3 years. So probably it is a bit modest, and a number of people who have looked at the proposal support what our colleagues and I are doing, like the transparency, like the disclosure. A number of them have said: You really ought to think about going further. I think colleagues know that I probably have spent as much time here in the Senate as any colleague trying to promote ideas and policies and get beyond some of the partisanship that dominates these debates. I am talking about candidates on both sides being required to meet this new bar. The same rules would apply to all nominees from both parties. A word about this notion of requiring a Presidential nominee to do this: I certainly wish that it weren't necessary to have a law requiring this. That would be my first choice. The fact is, it shouldn't take a law because this has been the norm; this has been the expectation. This is how I came to believe that a law was necessary. You volunteer to run for President of our wonderful country. You are not required to do it; you volunteer to do it. In my view, when you volunteer, there has been this norm, and there has been this expectation. Since Watergate, almost 40 years, there has been this expectation that you would make public your tax return. The failure to do so deviates from the norm, deviates away from transparency and in favor of secrecy. So my view is, when a candidate for President of the United States is not willing to disclose their taxes voluntarily and deviates from the norm, deviates from the understandable expectation the American people have, then I think you need a law, and that is why I have proposed it. For these four decades, the American people have been pretty clear: If you are a major party's nominee to be the leader of the free world, you do not get to hide your tax returns. This is the first time I have discussed our proposal here on the floor. I hope our colleagues will support the Presidential Tax Transparency Act, and I hope our colleagues on both sides of the aisle will agree that the American people deserve this guarantee of tax transparency that I have described this afternoon. Recognizing Hermiston High School Mr. President, I am going to speak briefly on one other matter that was particularly striking last week when I was home. I am going to talk for a few minutes about the wonderful work taking place at Hermiston High School in Eastern Oregon. Last week, I had the honor of visiting the terrific Career and Technical Education Program--the CTE Program--in Hermiston, and I had a chance to watch some very impressive students in action. One of the programs I visited was the Columbia Basin Student Homebuilders Program that got off the ground with a small amount of State financial assistance. The reason I wanted to discuss it this afternoon is, I think this program that can be a model, not just for my State, but for the Nation. Students enrolled in the homebuilders program work with local construction professionals to actually build houses for their community. Under the supervision of a teacher, students learn all facets of planning, designing, and building a new energy-efficient home within a budget. During my visit, Liz, a star high school senior and a future engineer, gave me a tour of this year's home. It is nothing short of gorgeous. At the end of the school year, this beautiful, custom- designed home is going to be sold to a lucky family. Students are involved in every bit of the process--from planning and design, to the actual construction, to the marketing and sale of the house. Revenue from the sale of the home funds the next project, so the next round of students in the program get to participate with no future funding required. Hermiston High School's career and technical education courses demonstrate to students that their community leaders are committed to helping them prepare for a successful life right out of high school. One student I met, Hannah, told me about a recreation and tourism project that involves starting a hospitality business. She is working to expand her line of cupcakes to meet customer demands. I note that the Presiding Officer has a great interest, as I do, in promoting recreation. That is why I have introduced the RNR bill, the Recreation Not Red-Tape Act. I was struck by Hannah's expertise. I note that the Presiding Officer probably saw this last Sunday. The Denver Post had an extraordinary article describing recreation as the economic engine of the future. I am not saying that just because they were kind to the RNR bill, but they talked about the promise of recreation and tourism, particularly for our part of the world. I was so impressed with Hannah. I said: I am going to send you the RNR bill, and I would appreciate it if you and your colleagues would look for additional ways to cut the red-tape and promote recreation and tourism in Oregon, and throughout the West, and support our existing and future businesses. The fact is that too many of our students are not graduating high school on time and far too many are unprepared for the workforce. Research has shown that students enrolled in career and technical education courses graduate from high school at a higher rate. In fact, the students at Hermiston High School told me their homebuilders program made them want to show up for school. I am committed to increasing graduation rates in Oregon and across the country, and I think one of the best ways to do it is to support programs like the one in Hermiston, because I think it is tailor-made to achieve this goal. Funding for Perkins Career and Technical Education Act courses is a way to make sure that programs like the one I just saw at Hermiston can be started around the country, but funding for these programs has been decreasing since 1998. At the same time, there is bipartisan consensus that career and technical education programs are important, not just for kids who want to be homebuilders but for all students. It seems to me that in overhauling the failed policies of No Child Left Behind, the Senate made a choice to move away from the era of over-tested ``bubble kids'' and towards an era of well-rounded, multi-skilled high school graduates. I am glad to see that the Senate HELP Committee is working hard on a proposal to reauthorize this career and technical education program, known as the Perkins Act. The last time it was reauthorized was in 1998. So I am going to work closely with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to keep pushing for a new bill. The fact is that the educators I saw last week are ambitious by any measure. They saw that their students were not graduating with the skills necessary to be successful in their future school and work lives. So the local educators started partnerships with local architects, engineers, and other professionals. They created a unique program that blends innovative classroom instruction with real-world application. We have businesses directly engaging with young people. Not only do they show what kinds of jobs are available in the community, but they also prove that school is an important steppingstone in preparing students for the real world. I have been in public service for a while. It is such a tremendous honor to represent Oregon in the Senate. But I will tell you, watching the way a small community in eastern Oregon, Hermiston, has come together and made a commitment to their young people is special. It is truly what we call the Oregon way. I will close by way of saying that I am grateful to the school, Hermiston High School, for allowing me to visit. I will do everything I can to take the student homebuilder program that I saw last week and spread the word about what the potential is here. They already sold one house for a very healthy price, and I think we would be wise--again here in the Senate, Democrats and Republicans--to come together and support career technical education programs like the ones I saw in Hermiston and urge all of us here in the Senate, on a bipartisan basis, to support Federal and State assistance for these kinds of programs, career and technical education programs, for even more students from one end of our country to the other. With that, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, rural Oregonians who have long worried about trains rumbling through our treasured Columbia River Gorge had their fears realized last Friday when a mile-long oil train derailed and caught fire in the heart of one of our State's crown jewels, the Columbia River Gorge. Our State is rich with breathtaking places, and we believe the Columbia River Gorge is right at the top of the list. Local tribes consider the area sacred ground, and it took the breath away from Meriwether Lewis, who wrote in his journal of ``beautiful cascades which fell from a great height over stupendous rocks. . . .''. In addition to being a haven for wildlife, the gorge is the lifeblood for tens of thousands of residents in the Pacific Northwest, a critical transportation corridor, and a center for outdoor recreation and tourism. Those who visit the gorge do so to windsurf, kiteboard, and parasail, fish, hike, and camp. It boasts the most visited recreation site in the Pacific Northwest, the thundering Multnomah Falls that Meriwether Lewis wrote about. In this pristine area, trains carrying flammable liquids barrel through the gorge on tracks that were built in the first half of the 20th century. On Friday, just a stone's throw from our region's lifeblood, the Columbia River, one of those trains fell off the tracks. Sixteen cars hauling crude oil crashed within view of a community school in the small town of Mosier. Three tank cars caught fire, one car leaked oil, and one experienced what is known as a thermal tear, sending a column of flames shooting into the air. We can see from the photo next to me just how close this fiery crash was to that school. People within a mile of the crash site were evacuated. The evacuation zone included Interstate 84, which was closed for 12 hours, and at least 100 nearby households. Some of these folks have yet to return to their homes. The sewer system was damaged badly enough that it was taken offline. Firefighters were forced to use so much water to put out the fire that the town's main well was depleted. As a result, residents who remain have been forced to drink bottled and boiled water. This has all been taking place in the middle of a heat wave at home. Here is the point about the reality I just described. A lot of Oregonians are telling me that we got lucky with the oil train accident in Mosier, and they are right. This crash has left Oregonians wondering what unlucky would have looked like. I can tell you it doesn't take a lot of imagination. The Mosier crash could have been much worse if the train had been going faster and with more cars derailing. It could have been worse if the crash had happened on Thursday, when winds were clocked above 30 miles an hour and the fire would have spread to the nearby tree line. If the crash had happened a mile east, it would have been on the edge of the river, causing a potentially catastrophic spill in the middle of a salmon run. If it had happened 60 miles west, it would have been in downtown Portland or in one of the suburbs. Oregon has been lucky a lot, and at some point that luck is going to run out. What people in small communities in Oregon want to know, and what they deserve to know, is what happens next. What is Congress going to do to start fixing the problem? I am here this morning with my friend and colleague from Oregon, Senator Merkley, to talk about what specifically we are going to do to get this fixed. More than a year ago, I introduced legislation with Senator Merkley, Senator Schumer, and five other Senators called the Hazardous Materials Rail Transportation Safety Improvement Act. Since then, four more Senators have signed on. Among the bill's lead supporters are the International Association of Firefighters and the International Association of Fire Chiefs. Our bill reduces the chance of accidents in the first place by providing funding for communities to relocate segments of track away from highly populated areas and for States to conduct more track inspections. Next, it helps communities prepare for a possible accident by paying for training for first responders before the next accident. Finally, the bill provides market incentives to use the safest tank cars to transport hazardous materials, which lowers the chance of a spill or a fire in the event of an accident. On Monday I talked with Union Pacific's CEO, Mr. Fritz. He committed to work with me and the Senate sponsors on this legislation. He indicated there were parts of the bill that the company can support. I think knowing that the company is willing now to follow up is a bit of constructive news and an encouraging development, but much more needs to be done. Yesterday, Senator Merkley and I, with our Governor, Congressman Blumenauer, Congressman Bonamici, called for a temporary moratorium on oil train traffic through the Columbia River Gorge. Yesterday, when I talked to the CEO of Union Pacific, Mr. Fritz, he committed that the Union Pacific will not ship Union trains of oil through the gorge until there are three developments: No. 1, the cause of the accident has been determined, No. 2, Union Pacific ensures that an accident will not happen again, and the company sits down and works out concerns that are obviously of enormous importance to the residents of Mosier. These commitments are helpful, and we are going to monitor them closely. The company has to do everything possible to help get residents in the town back on their feet. That includes getting the sewage system up and running and getting people back in their homes so they can get about their everyday lives. In my view, it would be hard, after a very close call like the one in Mosier on Friday, for anybody to just walk away and say, well, there probably will not be another accident, because while the people of Mosier work to get back to their normal lives, the threat of another crash is going to linger. Our people are talking about it. They are telling the newspapers they are nervous. They are nervous about the prospect of another accident, which is lingering in the minds of folks across my State. It has been clear for years that more needs to be done to protect our communities and prevent the next accident from ever occurring. It is tragic that Mosier has now joined a long and growing list of both small towns and big cities that have experienced an oil train accident, including: Casselton, ND; Lynchburg, VA; Aliceville, AL; New Augusta, MS; LaSalle, CO; Galena, IL; Watertown, WI; and Philadelphia, PA. More needs to be done to ensure that transportation systems used to haul crude oil and other flammable liquids are up to par. I hope Members of this body on both sides of the aisle will join me and Senator Merkley and nine other Senators. We already have over 10 percent of the Senate. I hope they will join us in our effort to protect communities everywhere from the next oil train accident. This has nothing to do with Democrats and Republicans. What this has to do with is whether we are going to take commonsense steps to prevent these accidents and ensure that in particular we do everything we can to have the kind of trains that are not as likely to be part of accidents in the future. My colleague Senator Merkley has been a terrific partner in this effort. We have been talking about how we are going to tackle this urgent issue for the people we represent, and he is going to have important remarks about Friday's accident in Mosier as well. With that, I yield the floor and look forward to Senator Merkley's comments.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Merkley, my colleague from Oregon, be allowed to finish his remarks prior to the recess.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, it was extraordinary to watch this bipartisan effort on TSCA. An hour ago, Senator Peters and I thought we were going to have floor time for some brief remarks. I would like to ask unanimous consent that Senator Peters have the chance to address the issues he thought he was going to address, and he is going to be brief. I will go next. I will be brief. I ask unanimous consent that following Senator Peters' remarks, I be allowed to address the Senate briefly.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, as the Senate works on the Defense bill, it is important to note the shameful squandering of taxpayer money by a defense contractor accused of willfully exposing U.S. soldiers to toxic chemicals while they served in Iraq. In 2003, courageous American soldiers, including members of Oregon's National Guard, were given the task of protecting workers of Kellogg Brown & Root, KBR, at the Qarmat Ali water treatment plant in southern Iraq. Some of these soldiers are suing KBR on the grounds that the contractor knowingly exposed them to dangerous carcinogenic substances such as sodium dichromate and hexavalent chromium. Many of these soldiers have reported serious illnesses, and at least one has already passed away at a surprisingly young age. KBR has fought this case, as is their right, and normally this would not be an issue for the Congress, but this is not a normal case because KBR isn't paying for the case. The American taxpayer is picking up the bill. KBR's contract with the Pentagon includes an indemnification clause. This, of course, is legalese that means that the U.S. taxpayer is on the hook not only for any damages incurred as a result of the contractor's actions but also for legal bills and administrative costs incurred during legal battles. It makes no difference if the contractor is at fault or not. In this case KBR has run up exorbitant and wasteful legal bills in the course of its lengthy legal defenses against the soldiers' claims. The Pentagon, in essence, gave these contractors a blank check. Predictably, KBR has run very high legal fees, paying first-class airfare for lawyers, witnesses, and executives, secure in the knowledge that the taxpayer was picking up the tab. Along with attorneys billing at $750 an hour, taxpayers are on the hook to pay at least one expert more than $600,000 for testimony and consultation and apparently time spent napping. Of course, there is no incentive for KBR to bring the legal cases to a conclusion. The lawyers can run fees until the cows come home because they know they will not have to pay a dime no matter how the case turns out. Fortunately, in this indemnity case, and in others, there is a solution provided in the same contract. The contract empowers the Department of Defense to take over the litigation and look out for the interest of the American taxpayer who is footing the bill. For reasons that are hard to calculate, the Pentagon has refused to do this in the KBR case, despite my having urged several Secretaries of Defense to exercise this authority, and so the litigation continues with no end in sight. That is why I have filed amendment No. 4510 to the 2017 National Defense Authorization Act. The amendment directs the Department of Defense to exercise its contractual right to take over litigation for indemnified contractors in cases where the legal process runs more than 2 years. In doing so, it will bring the seemingly never-ending litigation to a timely resolution and save taxpayers from throwing good money after bad as the process drags on and on year after year. The amendment isn't an attempt to relitigate the decision to indemnify contractors in the first place. What this commonsense amendment seeks to do is to make sure that the blank checks being picked up by taxpayers stop. This is critical because the government has an obligation to ensure that these legal bills don't cost the taxpayers any more than necessary, and certainly the American taxpayer does not need to be padding the pockets of the lawyers of the contractors. I want to be clear: The amendment does not prejudice the outcome of the legal case in any way. It simply ensures that when the taxpayers pay the bill, the government that represents the American taxpayer is in control instead of a contractor's lawyer. It seems to me that the Senate owes that to the American taxpayer. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment when it is considered later in the course of the day. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Virginia, Senator Casey, Senator Brown, and Senator Manchin. They have been relentless in putting this issue of justice for the miners in front of the Finance Committee. Week after week, month after month, they have been saying: When is this going to get done? When is the Congress--particularly the Senate-- going to step up and meet the needs that these workers richly deserve to have addressed? We have had this documented again and again. I heard Senator Casey talk about it--how difficult this work is. We have had that put in front of the Senate Finance Committee. Yet there has been no action. Senator Warner is right--my home State of Oregon does not mine coal. We do have a lot of communities with economies that over the years have been driven by natural resources. They have been up and down the boom- and-bust roller coaster. A lot of those communities are experiencing the very same kind of economic pain you see in the mining towns Senator Casey and our colleagues represent. You don't turn your backs on workers and retirees in these struggling communities, these struggling mining towns, just because the times are tough. These workers have earned their pensions. They have earned their health care benefits. But the fact is, if Congress does not act soon, all of this could be taken away. There is a broader crisis in multi-employer pensions that I have talked about on the floor and in the Finance Committee. Part of this crisis goes back to a bad law that passed, over my opposition, in 2014. It gave a green light to slashing benefits for retirees and multi- employer pension plans. It said that it was OK to go back on the deal companies made with their workers and to take away benefits--benefits people had earned through years of hard work. So there are a lot of seniors now walking an economic tightrope every day, and this law threatens to make their lives even harder. Now you have the mine workers' pensions--the pensions Senator Casey and colleagues have been talking about--in such immediate danger, there is enormous financial pressure being put on the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. That is because the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation is an economic backstop for millions of retirees. It insures the pensions belonging to mine workers and more than 40 million Americans. But the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation is in danger of insolvency if the Congress doesn't step up and find a solution for the troubles facing multi-employer pension plans. And fixing the mine workers' pension plan is a critical component of any solution for the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation's insurance program. If you don't come up with a solution there, you are going to put in place a prescription for trouble for generations of retired workers across the country. Senator Manchin has worked strenuously for this cause, reaching across the aisle to Senator Capito. I mentioned my colleagues on the Finance Committee. There is now a bipartisan proposal ready to go to protect retired mine workers' health benefits and bolster their pension plan. It would stave off the threat of financial ruin for more than 100,000 workers and their families and would help safeguard the Pension Benefits Guaranty Corporation and the millions of Americans who count on it to insure their livelihoods. We understand that if you want to do something important in the Senate, it has to be bipartisan, so we have reached out to the majority to find a way to advance this proposal. The mine workers are not facing some imaginary policy deadline. Their livelihoods are on the line. Their health care is on the line. The economic security of entire communities is on the line. So it is time for the Congress to step up. I again thank my colleagues. I wish to note that I have some additional remarks to make, and I am going to wait to give those remarks because I understand Senator Heitkamp, Senator Donnelly, and Senator Coats are going to go beforehand. I see our friend from North Dakota on her feet. I yield the floor.