Ron Wyden

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I have waited to give this speech for weeks, waited for the rhetoric to die down after the untimely and unexpected passing of Justice Scalia, and waited to speak about the sad state of affairs out of a hope that no more words would be necessary before this Senate acted. It was my fervent hope that the initial reaction to Justice Scalia's death was due to the shock and the grief at the loss of a conservative icon. I, like many of my colleagues, were publicly mourning the loss, and I assumed that my colleagues were simultaneously realizing that after decades of trending to the right, it was now more than likely that the Supreme Court was going to shift back to a more centrist, progressive point of view. But now it appears that the Senate has descended into an ``Alice in Wonderland'' world where the Senate cannot even agree on how many Supreme Court Justices make the Court functional. Throughout our history, in the Senate there have been previous attempts to attack the Court by, on the one hand, denying it members, or, on the other hand, packing the Court. In those instances, this once august body has stood together and always protected the sanctity of the Court--but not today. The Senate is not only displaying contempt for the Court, but it is demonstrating contempt of its constitutional responsibilities. It is hard for the people we are honored to represent to make sense out of much of what goes on here--who serves on the subcommittee that always sounds like the subcommittee on acoustics and ventilation, what a motion to table the amendment to the amendment to the amendment actually means--but this is an issue the American people get. We know there are supposed to be nine Supreme Court Justices and the Senate ought to do its job and ensure that the Court can function without wasting years of people's lives and dollars by allowing cases to be undecided through deadlock. I can state that I am going to be home this weekend for townhall meetings. At these townhall meetings, I hear from citizens who are exasperated. They tell me this in the grocery store, in the gym, and in other places where Oregonians gather. They cannot understand how a U.S. Senator can ignore the responsibility to advise on a Supreme Court nominee and remain true to his or her oath. Here is what Oregonians know for sure. They understand that the President of the United States is elected to a 4-year term, not a 3- year term and some number of days--4 years. We learn it in the first quarter of high school civics class. Oregonians and Americans understand that it is the President's job during that 4-year term to fill vacancies on the Court, and Oregonians understand that it is the Senate's job to advise and consent on the nomination by holding hearings and then having an up-or-down vote. The President has fulfilled his duty. The Senate is utterly failing its responsibility. We have a nominee--an eminently well-qualified nominee. Our President pro tempore in the Senate, who is widely respected, called him ``highly qualified'' and described him this way: His intelligence and his scholarship cannot be questioned. . . . His legal experience is equally impressive. . . . Accordingly, I believe Mr. Garland is a fine nominee. I know him personally, I know of his integrity, I know of his legal ability, I know of his honesty, I know of his acumen, and he belongs on the Court. I believe he is not only a fine nominee, but is as good as Republicans can expect from this administration. In fact, I would place him at the top of the list. Those are the exact words of our President pro tempore with respect to this nominee. The then-chairman of the Judiciary Committee called him ``well qualified,'' even though he objected to bringing the Court he was being appointed to up to its full complement of Justices. But despite having a fully qualified judge vetted and praised by many of their colleagues, this intemperate rhetoric about blocking the Court has now solidified into an indefensible position. That is why after waiting for weeks, I am on the floor this evening. The first blow is now well known and often quoted. The majority leader said: The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President. This was said at a time when other officials were releasing statements offering condolences to the Justice's family, which includes 26 grandchildren. In some respects this reaction should have been expected. When President Obama took office, it seemed that the goal of some was to oppose anything he did, however reasonable. Senators such as myself who have been here long enough to see the ebbs and flows of the Senate figured that this stance was probably just a temporary slump. Senators put in long hours and travel endlessly to make a difference on issues that are important to them and to their States. Even if the solemn responsibility and constitutional duty with which they are entrusted weren't enough to encourage action in this serious situation, it would seem, for the sake of our country and our people, that many here hoped this body would find its way back again. Unfortunately, that has not been the case. So the majority leader's response to the death of Justice Scalia becomes yet another example of the scorched-Earth approach to politics the far-right has taken since the very beginning of the Obama Presidency. It is a sad and unworthy response to Americans who expressed their will at the ballot box. Many Americans list choosing a Supreme Court Justice as one of their leading reasons for choosing a Presidential candidate. Sometimes--many times--this is given as the most significant reason for voting for a President. In the last Presidential election, the American people chose Barack Obama as the duly elected President of the United States. I state this because, for many of my colleagues, that fact somehow seems to have just vanished from their minds, or perhaps there is just a refusal to recognize the results of the 2012 election. Americans chose President Obama to be the Commander in Chief, to administer the laws, and, yes, to appoint a new Supreme Court Justice for any vacancies that occur between January 20, 2013, and January 20, 2017. The unanimous position or near unanimous position of the majority is that elections don't really seem to matter, that the rule of force becomes the rule of law, and saying ``no, we will not'' is an acceptable response for being asked to fulfill constitutional responsibilities. Basically, this position disenfranchises the constitutionally ratified choice of more than 65 million Americans because the majority in the Senate simply doesn't agree with them. This is not a response worthy of U.S. Senators. It is choosing party and ideology over the needs of our country, and it is a political choice that many of my colleagues are beginning to understand they cannot support. My colleagues have said: It is not the position; it is the principle. But this is a position without principle. It is really pure politics-- pure politics of the worst kind. It calls into question whether perpetrators can effectively do their jobs as Senators going forward. Today the Senate, this venerable institution, continues to find itself in the hands of the most insidious form of politics--small ``p'' politics. It is the kind of politics that seems just devoid of reason, revolving around what seems to most Americans to be a truly straightforward portion of the Constitution. Article II, section 2, paragraph 2, of the Constitution states: [The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to . . . nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint . . . Judges of the Supreme Court. . . . Now, I am a lawyer in name only. I don't profess to be a constitutional scholar. But at this point, I am one of the longer serving Members of the Senate, and I have placed a special priority on working with colleagues across the aisle, trying to find common ground, recognizing that the Senate is at its best when colleagues work together. But to my mind, the current approach taken by the majority toward the President's duty to nominate a Supreme Court Justice and the duty the Senate has to advise and consent on the nominee has led this Senate to an unprecedented and dangerous situation. It seems to me that by denying Judge Garland a hearing, we are denied the opportunity to ask the nominee questions to which the American people are owed answers. The current position of refusing to ask those questions and hear those answers is an insult to our form of government, one understood by originalists, strict constructionists, and liberal interpreters alike. The Senate's decline has been particularly vivid in the case of judicial appointments. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia is the primary judicial forum for appeals of Executive and regulatory actions prior to the Supreme Court. As such, it has become the focus of ideologues who oppose environmental regulations, consumer regulation, anti-trust, and many other hallmarks of our system of government for the past century. When three vacancies opened on this court and Presidential appointments were made, Senate Republicans proceeded to filibuster each and every one of those nominees, claiming--in my view ridiculously-- that the President was engaged in ``court packing.'' Now, in the interest of fairness, court packing is the reprehensible course of action chosen by a liberal icon, President Franklin D. Roosevelt, when faced with a court that opposed his will. That attempt was a dangerous time for our constitutional system of checks and balances and must be remembered, lest it be repeated. Not only was it dishonest to apply this term to the regular process of filling existing vacancies, the accusers were, in fact, attempting to accomplish FDR's same goal of bending a Federal court to their will in a blatant attack on our system of checks and balances. Today, we are witnessing another attack on the Constitution in this refusal to do our job and proceed to the confirmation process for Judge Garland. This is a grave assessment, and maybe I am being a bit too harsh to colleagues in laying their refusal to duty on purely political grounds. So I want to just take a couple of minutes to unpack some of the justifications that have been given for what we have heard. Some Members have argued there is a longstanding tradition that the Senate does not fill a Supreme Court vacancy during a Presidential election year. This has been referred to as an ``80-year precedent'' and as ``standard practice.'' Unfortunately, that turns out not to be the case. There is no such precedent. Or, I would say, there is no such precedent unless you define your terms so narrowly that the concept of precedent becomes meaningless. This can be contrived, for example, by limiting the discussion to nominations made during a Presidential election year rather than nominations considered during a Presidential election year. However, that is like saying: We never previously filled a Supreme Court vacancy in a year in which Leonardo DiCaprio won an Oscar and Denver won the Super Bowl. This is true enough, but it covers such a small set of cases that it provides no meaningful guidance. If anything, the relevant historical precedent favors the Senate considering a nomination to fill the current vacancy. Since 1912, the Senate has considered seven Supreme Court nominations during Presidential elections. Six of the nominations were confirmed: Mahlon Pitney in 1912; Louis Brandeis and John H. Clarke in 1916; Benjamin Cardozo in 1932; Frank Murphy in 1940; and the most recent example, Anthony Kennedy in 1988, who was nominated by President Reagan and confirmed unanimously by a Senate in which Democrats held the majority. In one other case, that of Abe Fortas in 1968, the nomination was rejected in an election year. However, even then, the Senate did its job. It held hearings, reported the nomination from committee, voted on whether to invoke cloture on the nomination on the Senate floor. In the face of this historical record, some Senators have argued another point. They have invoked the so-called Biden rule, based on a speech that Vice President Biden gave on the Senate floor in 1992 when he was chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. In that speech, according to some Members, Senator Biden established a binding rule that the Senate should never consider Supreme Court nominations during Presidential election years. First, as discussed above, there is no such thing as a binding Senate rule. We make them. We break them. We change them. It is the flexibility of this institution that has allowed it to continue to serve Americans for 225 years and the current inflexibility of my colleagues that threatens to bring it to harm. Now, let's look at Senator Biden's 1992 comments in perspective. He gave a speech, perhaps intemperate, but in 1988, as I just described, he led the Senate in confirming Justice Anthony Kennedy. Further, in 1987 and 1991, when Presidents Reagan and Bush submitted the highly controversial nominations of Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas, the Senate Judiciary Committee, chaired by then-Senator Biden, held hearings on the nominations and took them to the floor for up-or- down votes. So when Senator Biden chaired the Judiciary Committee, he always provided a Republican President's Supreme Court nominees with a hearing, a vote in committee, and a vote on the Senate floor. It is also important to consider the overall point that Senator Biden was making in 1992. The Supreme Court was about to adjourn, which is a time when Justices frequently announce their retirement. Senator Biden was arguing that there should not be a trumped-up retirement, designed to create a vacancy for which the President would submit an ideologically extreme nominee as ``part of a campaign to make the Supreme Court an agent of an ultra right conservative social agenda which would lack support in the Congress and the country.'' Senator Biden was arguing against partisanship. He was counseling restraint. He said that ``so long as the public continues to split its confidence between branches, compromise is the responsible course both for the White House and for the Senate.'' Noting his support of the nominee, though nominated by an opposing President, Senator Biden was urging both sides to step back from partisan ideological warfare. Senator Biden urged Congress to develop a nomination confirmation process that reflected divided government by delivering a moderate, well-respected nominee who would be subject to a reasonable, dignified nomination process. Senator Biden went on to say, ``If the President consults and cooperates with the Senate or moderates his selections absent consultation, then his nominees may enjoy my support, just as did Justices Kennedy and Souter.'' That is precisely the approach that President Obama is following here--moderating his selection. In nominating Judge Garland, the President has not politicized the process. The President has not nominated some left-wing ideologue who thrills progressives but angers conservatives. You already heard what I quoted directly from our esteemed friend, the President pro tempore of the Senate, Senator Hatch. The President has gone to the middle, seeking compromise. He has nominated someone who is widely regarded as sound and moderate and capable. Indeed, not long ago, leading Republican Senators cited Judge Garland as the very example of the type of person they were hoping the President would nominate. Judge Garland is the kind of person about whom my colleagues on the other side of the aisle said: This is the kind of person we would really like to see for this job. Now, there have been other attempts to defend the indefensible, and they all go back to the facts that I have just outlined. No matter the politics, no matter your concern about a primary challenge from the right, no matter the faint hope that a Member of your party might win the White House and nominate an ideological kindred spirit, no matter the pressure to choose party over country, it is time to do our constitutional duty, hold hearings, ask questions, get answers, and vote on the nominee. Perhaps, as with Abe Fortas, the nominee will be rejected. If that is the Senate's will, so be it. But denying a duly nominated candidate a responsible and dignified confirmation process is choosing to further endanger the people we serve and the body that we serve in. Finally, every Republican Member must know that having a meeting or calling for hearings and a vote without taking any action to make it so is pretty much naked politics, and Americans are not going to be fooled. If Members of the majority actually wish to see the Senate do its job, they can force the Senate to make it happen by denying the leadership the ability to act on other less pressing matters until they take up this responsibility. To go home and claim that you would like hearings--that you would like a vote--without taking action to make it happen is simply lip service to the constitutional responsibility of a Senator. I am going to close with just a couple of last thoughts. My colleagues have the opportunity to redeem this body. My colleagues have repeatedly said: It is not the position; it is the principle. But it was understood during FDR's time, and it should be understood now, that threatening the makeup of the Supreme Court is a position without principle. Intemperance appears to be the hallmark of political rhetoric in this day. Somehow, if it is loud and intemperate, that is what people are going to pay attention to. But this sort of intemperate rhetoric is certainly corrosive to this institution. The Senate still has an opportunity to sober up, regardless of what was said, buckle down, get to work, hold hearings, and vote on a nominee. Political rhetoric can be forgiven. Allowing intemperate rhetoric to control the solemn responsibility of every Senator is unforgivable. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Lucy Ohlsen, a legislative fellow in my office, be given floor privileges for the remainder of this Congress.

Mr. WYDEN

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

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, last month the Department of Labor laid out new safeguards that will help middle-class savers in a rule pertaining to advice given by financial advisers. Today the Senate has taken up a resolution of disapproval that will undo that progress. I urge my colleagues to oppose it. The Senate ought to be doing everything it can to help middle-class workers save for retirement. Instead, this resolution would go in the opposite direction. Workers from Oregon and across the Nation are facing a savings crisis. Fewer and fewer people have access to the type of simple, reliable pensions that were once commonplace. The ``Leave it to Beaver'' ideal of getting a family-wage job, working your way up in a company, and retiring with a pension and a gold watch is not the prospect in front of many American workers today. For most Americans, the road to retirement now takes many more twists and turns. The burden of figuring out how to save, which seems to get tougher all the time, often falls directly on the workers themselves. First come the tough questions, and they come right up front: when to start saving, how much to set aside, when to retire, and how much to draw down each month. What happens if you outlive your savings? You have to study the markets, stocks and bonds, mutual funds, exchange- traded funds, index funds. You have to decide what kind of risks you can afford to take on. It is even complicated for employers who have to pick from a long list of different kinds of retirement plans: 401(k)s, SIMPLE IRAs, SEPs, employee stock ownership plans, stock bonus plans-- to name just a few. It should come as no surprise to anybody that Americans frequently turn to financial planners to help figure out these issues. It is my view that the overwhelming majority of these advisers are honest individuals who act in the best interest of their clients, but without modern protections in place, some bad actors, unfortunately, choose to push their clients toward products with higher fees and lower returns. It could mean the loss of tens of thousands of dollars from a retirement account over a lifetime of savings. To be clear, this is not some kind of esoteric issue that hardly anybody faces. It is a very substantial drain on middle-class savings. One estimate by the Council of Economic Advisers said that conflicts of interest in retirement advice cost Americans $17 billion every single year. That is where the Labor Department's new rule comes in. The rules pertaining to fiduciary investment advisers who act solely in the interest of their clients date back to 1975. Obviously, in the more than 40 years since then, there have been very large changes in the retirement world. Many more 401(k)s, fewer professionally managed pension funds, and many more individuals and employers--especially small employers--lean on advisers for help determining how to invest their funds. It seems to me the law ought to be modernized to reflect those changes. The new rule seeks to lay out modern safeguards that are going to help protect middle-class savers and small business owners. What it says is that going forward, all retirement savers will be able to get advice that is in their best interest. It is a simple principle. My hope is, policymakers on both sides of the aisle will give it strong support. It is important to recognize that the Labor Department made a number of changes based on legitimate concerns that were raised as this rule came together. For example, last summer I wrote a letter to Secretary Perez with a number of my colleagues from the Senate Finance Committee that flagged a number of issues, asking the Secretary to ensure that any final rule would work effectively. As I said--a group of us Democratic members on the Senate Finance Committee--there were a number of issues that we thought needed a bit more work. I am pleased to see that the Secretary took many of our suggestions. For example, our Senate Finance Committee letter highlighted the importance of a smooth transition to the new rule, and the Secretary actually took steps that included an extended implementation period. Instead of finding fresh approaches to help Americans prepare for retirement, colleagues on the other side have brought forward a resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act that would, in effect, block these new protections. In the 20 years since it became law, there has only been one successful disapproval resolution under the Congressional Review Act. Under no circumstances should this extreme tool be used to make it harder for middle-class Americans to get sound retirement advice. We have a situation where the rules of the road date back for more than 40 years. The bottom line is that we ought to come together and update those rules so we can protect our small businesses, the middle class, and build a stronger ethic of saving in America. That is what this is all about. I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose the resolution of disapproval. With that, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I, along with my colleague Senator Paul from Kentucky, Senator Baldwin from Wisconsin, and Senators Daines and Tester from Montana, am introducing the Stopping Mass Hacking Act, S. 2952, a bill to protect millions of law-abiding Americans from Government hacking. On April 28, 2016, at the request of the Department of Justice, the U.S. Federal Courts recommended administrative changes to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the rule that governs search and seizure procedure. The changes have been approved by the Supreme Court, and pursuant to the Rules Enabling Act the amendments take effect on December 1, 2016, absent Congressional action. Despite the seriousness of the changes, Congress has not spoken on the subject. It should. Making changes like this simply by administrative fiat is not good enough. So, today, Senator Paul and I introduce this bill. The administrative changes will provide a magistrate judge with the authority to issue a warrant for remote electronic searches of devices located anywhere in the world when law enforcement does not know the location of the device. While it may be appropriate to address the issue of allowing a remote electronic search for a device at an unknown location, Congress needs to consider what protections must be in place to protect Americans' digital security and privacy. This is a new and uncertain area of law, so there needs to be full and careful debate. The second part of the change to Rule 41 gives a magistrate judge the authority to issue a single warrant that would authorize the search of a large number--potentially thousands or millions--of devices that can cover any number of searches in any jurisdiction. These changes would dramatically expand the government's hacking and surveillance authority. The American public should understand that these changes will not just affect criminals: computer security experts and civil liberties advocates say the amendments would also dramatically expand the government's ability to hack the electronic devices of law-abiding Americans if their devices were affected by a computer attack. Finally, these changes to Rule 41 would also give some types of electronic searches different, weaker notification requirements than physical searches. This raises the possibility of the FBI hacking into a person's computer after they are the victim of a cyber attack and not telling them about it until afterward, if at all. Under this new rule, they are only required to make ``reasonable efforts'' to notify people that their computers were searched. You can see how that might be problematic. It could lead to circumstances in which law-abiding Americans are not told that the government has secretly hacked into their computer. These changes are a major policy shift that will impact Americans' digital security, the government's surveillance powers and the Fourth Amendment. Part of the problem is the simple fact that both the American public and security experts know so little about how the government goes about hacking a computer to search it. If a victim's Fourth Amendment rights are violated, it might not be readily apparent because of the highly technical nature of the methods used to execute the warrant. As a body of elected representatives, it is Congress's job to make sure we do not let the Executive Branch run roughshod over our constituents' rights. That is why action is so important: this is a policy question that should be debated by Congress. Although the Department of Justice has tried to describe this rule change as simply a matter of judicial venue, sometimes a difference in scale really is a difference in kind. By allowing so many searches with the order of just a single judge, Congress's failure to act on this issue would be a disaster for law-abiding Americans. When the public realizes what is at stake, I think there is going to be a massive outcry: Americans will look at Congress and say, ``What were you thinking?'' I am here today, introducing this legislation, to sound an alarm. This rule change would could have a massive impact on Americans' digital security and privacy, and I plan on spending the next seven months making sure my colleagues fully understand the huge ramifications of inaction. I thank my colleague Senator Paul for his efforts on this bill, and I hope the Judiciary Committee will consider our proposal quickly.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I, along with my colleague Senator Paul from Kentucky, Senator Baldwin from Wisconsin, and Senators Daines and Tester from Montana, am introducing the Stopping Mass Hacking Act, S. 2952, a bill to protect millions of law-abiding Americans from Government hacking. On April 28, 2016, at the request of the Department of Justice, the U.S. Federal Courts recommended administrative changes to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the rule that governs search and seizure procedure. The changes have been approved by the Supreme Court, and pursuant to the Rules Enabling Act the amendments take effect on December 1, 2016, absent Congressional action. Despite the seriousness of the changes, Congress has not spoken on the subject. It should. Making changes like this simply by administrative fiat is not good enough. So, today, Senator Paul and I introduce this bill. The administrative changes will provide a magistrate judge with the authority to issue a warrant for remote electronic searches of devices located anywhere in the world when law enforcement does not know the location of the device. While it may be appropriate to address the issue of allowing a remote electronic search for a device at an unknown location, Congress needs to consider what protections must be in place to protect Americans' digital security and privacy. This is a new and uncertain area of law, so there needs to be full and careful debate. The second part of the change to Rule 41 gives a magistrate judge the authority to issue a single warrant that would authorize the search of a large number--potentially thousands or millions--of devices that can cover any number of searches in any jurisdiction. These changes would dramatically expand the government's hacking and surveillance authority. The American public should understand that these changes will not just affect criminals: computer security experts and civil liberties advocates say the amendments would also dramatically expand the government's ability to hack the electronic devices of law-abiding Americans if their devices were affected by a computer attack. Finally, these changes to Rule 41 would also give some types of electronic searches different, weaker notification requirements than physical searches. This raises the possibility of the FBI hacking into a person's computer after they are the victim of a cyber attack and not telling them about it until afterward, if at all. Under this new rule, they are only required to make ``reasonable efforts'' to notify people that their computers were searched. You can see how that might be problematic. It could lead to circumstances in which law-abiding Americans are not told that the government has secretly hacked into their computer. These changes are a major policy shift that will impact Americans' digital security, the government's surveillance powers and the Fourth Amendment. Part of the problem is the simple fact that both the American public and security experts know so little about how the government goes about hacking a computer to search it. If a victim's Fourth Amendment rights are violated, it might not be readily apparent because of the highly technical nature of the methods used to execute the warrant. As a body of elected representatives, it is Congress's job to make sure we do not let the Executive Branch run roughshod over our constituents' rights. That is why action is so important: this is a policy question that should be debated by Congress. Although the Department of Justice has tried to describe this rule change as simply a matter of judicial venue, sometimes a difference in scale really is a difference in kind. By allowing so many searches with the order of just a single judge, Congress's failure to act on this issue would be a disaster for law-abiding Americans. When the public realizes what is at stake, I think there is going to be a massive outcry: Americans will look at Congress and say, ``What were you thinking?'' I am here today, introducing this legislation, to sound an alarm. This rule change would could have a massive impact on Americans' digital security and privacy, and I plan on spending the next seven months making sure my colleagues fully understand the huge ramifications of inaction. I thank my colleague Senator Paul for his efforts on this bill, and I hope the Judiciary Committee will consider our proposal quickly.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I regret that due to travel delays on my return from Oregon, I missed the vote yesterday on the confirmation of the nominee, Paula Xinis, to fill a judicial emergency vacancy in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. Ms. Xinis was nominated more than a year ago. The ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary unanimously rated Xinis ``Well Qualified'' to serve on the district court, its highest rating. She has the support of her home State Senators, Senators Mikulski and Cardin. She was voted out of the Judiciary Committee by voice vote on September 17, 2015. In addition, 20 judicial nominees for lower court vacancies that were all voted out of committee by unanimous voice vote are currently on the Executive Calendar. It is important that the Senate work to prioritize filling these vacancies. For those reasons, had I not experienced travel delays and been present as originally intended, I would have voted in support of her nomination.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, this year marks the 100th anniversary of the Webfoot Warriors, the Reserve Officers' Training Corps program at the University of Oregon. As an alumnus of the University of Oregon Law School, I would like to commemorate this milestone. Reserve Officers' Training Corps, or ROTC, is a voluntary program offered at hundreds of schools across the country. Students who meet the eligibility requirements and stick with the program receive subsidized tuition and, after graduation, are commissioned as officers in the U.S. military. The ROTC curriculum consists of courses in military science and history as well as practical skills and leadership training. The ROTC program we know today traces its roots to the National Defense Act of 1916, a bill signed into law by President Woodrow Wilson barely a year before the United States entered World War I. Like many other university administrators of the day, Prince Lucien Campbell, the University of Oregon's president at the time, was a supporter of the program. President Campbell established the first ROTC curriculum at the University of Oregon, placing a retired British military officer-- the appropriately named Lieutenant Colonel John Leader--in charge. More than 100 students participated in the first drill in March 1916. The University of Oregon ROTC program commissioned its first officers in 1919, after the Allied victory in World War I, and the unit has produced some truly top-notch officers in the decades since. In fact, the Army Cadet Command awarded the unit a General Douglas MacArthur Award for the 2014-2015 academic year, recognizing it as one of the top eight Army ROTC programs in the country. According to the unit's records, the University of Oregon has produced more general officers than any nonmilitary ROTC program in the country. The program also counts a total of 47 flag officers among its graduates. As Oregonians, we have long taken pride in serving our State and this great country, and the Webfoot Warriors are hardly an exception. As then-President Campbell put it himself, ``the matter of military training in any school seems to me to be a training for better citizenship, rather than for war.'' Today I say thank you to all of the men and women of the Webfoot Warriors past and present, and I wish the University of Oregon ROTC program another 100 years of success.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I wish to congratulate Clackamas Community College, CCC, in Clackamas County, OR, on 50 years of continued growth and achievement in providing valuable education to Oregon's citizens. From Gladstone, to Oregon City, to Wilsonville, CCC has grown to include three campuses and two extension sites. Now with campuses educating 35,000 students, CCC still has a community-minded focus and provides its communities with affordable education and training opportunities which aid in creating family-wage jobs. Since 1966, CCC has prided itself on being a welcoming place for students seeking transfer degrees, specialized career technical education, or returning to finish a high school diploma. The college has over 80 career and technical programs, from automotive technology and renewable energy, to the ever-growing field of medical and dental assistance. CCC has also grown into one of the top community colleges in the Nation for our veterans, earning a Best in the West award from the Military Times last year. The college has made service to veterans and military families a high priority and an integral part of its campus identity. The college has several full-time veterans advocates on staff and the only Army Strong Community Center in the western U.S., connecting military families to the resources they need. For 50 years, educators, administrators, and board members have followed their vision that has led to CCC being a fixture of achievement in northwest Oregon. And to help continue that tradition of achievement, CCC has recently launched the ``Imagine Clackamas'' project, which is a 2-year outreach effort designed to help the college identify where to adapt and expand its strengths. I am excited to see what new heights this great community college will reach as it thrives for decades to come. It is an honor to represent Clackamas Community College in the U.S. Senate, and congratulations again to the college on its 50th anniversary.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, this year marks the 40th anniversary of the Immigrant and Refugee Community Organization, IRCO, a nonprofit organization that serves the many immigrant and refugee communities that come to Oregon seeking a new and better life. Since its founding in 1976, IRCO has been helping individuals and families who come to the United States with few resources and little support. Established by refugees, for refugees, the organization has a long track record of providing vital housing, healthcare, and employment services. IRCO staff offer peer-to-peer assistance and culturally specific services through programs like the Asian Family Center and Africa House. IRCO served more than 28,000 people in 2015 alone, helping these new Oregonians integrate into communities across our State while maintaining an important connection to their rich heritage and traditions. Beyond offering immediate support for those starting a life in the United States, IRCO has also become an advocacy arm for Oregon's immigrants and refugees. Its leadership development programs have graduated many individuals who have worked with key decisionmakers to pursue change in Oregon and beyond. As many in this Chamber know, I am the son of immigrants who fled Nazi Germany to avoid persecution. The act of helping immigrants and refugees resettle, to become contributing Americans, is close to my heart. I know firsthand how this country thrives by harnessing the ideas, energy, and hard work of those who come to our shores--in fact, I stand here today as the proof. That is why I will continue to do what I can to support organizations, like IRCO, working day-in and day-out to ensure everyone gets a fair shot at success. I conclude by congratulating IRCO on 40 years of tremendous service and by wishing all of its staff, volunteers, and partners continued success in the years to come.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I wish to make some remarks about our wonderful colleague who passed away last week, Senator Bob Bennett. Two of Senator Bennett's favorite Senators are here on the floor this afternoon--Senator Feinstein and Senator Alexander. What Senator Bennett liked so much about Senator Alexander and Senator Feinstein is what we have seen this afternoon. The two of them have a difference of opinion with respect, I gather, to the Iran deal. I happen to share Senator Feinstein's view, but the two of them are trying to find common ground here in the Senate. That is the Senate at its best, and that is exactly what Bob Bennett liked so much about both my colleague from California and my colleague from Tennessee. So I think it is very fitting that I open my remarks about Senator Bennett after having listened once again to the Chair and ranking member talk about how the Senate is supposed to do business. There are so many wonderful things to say about Bob Bennett, but I thought I would begin by talking about Senator Bennett's favorite subject because of something he created. He saw it is a great opportunity for the Senate, and he called it the grand bargain. Whenever I had a chance to sit down and talk with him--I had joined the Finance Committee--he would talk about the opportunities that were related to taxes. He often talked with Senator Alexander and me, as my colleague remembers. He talked to us about health care and taxes. He was very interested in innovation. By the way, I think he was one of the first Senators who purchased a hybrid vehicle close to 20 years ago, and he used that discussion to branch into the kinds of building connections that you have to do when you are talking about how you are going to increase the standard of living for Americans in a constantly changing world where you are really dealing with global economics. We don't just sell stuff to people down the street; we are competing against economic forces from all over the world. When Senator Bennett talked about his idea of a grand bargain--and you could be sitting with him in the Senate dining room, for example, and he probably took out a napkin if he couldn't find a piece of paper--what he was interested in was what I call principled bipartisanship. In other words, nobody gets everything they want, but what you try to do is find principles that you feel strongly about and principles that the other side feels strongly about--and that is what Senator Alexander and Senator Feinstein were talking about this afternoon--and you find some common ground. It was very fortunate, as I look at my career in public service, that I had a chance to work with Bob Bennett. I will tell you, the way I see it, there was no better grand bargain in life than a friendship with Bob Bennett. We differed on plenty of stuff, just as I am sure Senator Feinstein and Senator Alexander differ on matters. Bob would always say: Ron is pro-choice, I am pro-life; Ron was against the Iraq war, I was for the Iraq war. But we didn't spend our time arguing about those kinds of things. What we were interested in was finding ways to solve problems. I remember one example that I think my colleagues on the floor remember as well. Back at the time of Y2K, the turn of the century--oh, my goodness, one would have thought that western civilization was going to end. We were going to have this technology meltdown. It was going to be chaos around the world. Well, there were two bills at the time, two pieces of legislation. There was a bill from our former colleague, Senator Dodd, and Senator Bennett. I was a young upstart member of the Commerce Committee. Senator McCain, knowing my interest in technology policy, basically gave me a great honor by saying ``Why don't you be my running mate?'' because he was the chairman of the committee. So there were two bills; one was Senator McCain and I as the junior running mate, and the other was Bob Bennett and Chris Dodd. Everybody said there was going to be all kinds of fighting among the four of us. Nobody is going to agree. Nobody will pass a piece of legislation, and the country, as a result, will not be prepared. Well, because of Bob--I basically was the newcomer to the Senate. This was a big, important piece of legislation. Bob and Chris Dodd and Senator McCain basically said: We are not going to have any part of some bickerfest here in the U.S. Senate; we are going to solve a problem. And they did. You bet, it picked up opposition. There were some folks on the progressive side who had reservations about some provisions, and there were some folks on the conservative side who had reservations about the legislation. We passed a bill. I remember going down to the Y2K center that night and staying up all night. I can't claim that our legislation was responsible for such a smooth-running transition, but we like to think that the fact that the Senate decided to set aside partisanship and actually get something done was constructive. The reality is that Bob Bennett firmly believed that he was elected to do more than just get reelected. I think that was right in the core of how he worked in the U.S. Senate. I have been in public life awhile. I was the director of the Gray Panthers for a number of years when I was a young man with a full head of hair and rugged good looks. I was always dreaming about being a major part of health reform, so I put together a bill. I said: I think my party is right that we are never going to get health care fixed unless we have universal coverage; otherwise, it will be cost shifting, and there won't be prevention. But the Republicans had a valid point, too, that there ought to be a role for the private sector. So I was talking to Republicans, and Senator Alexander remembers these visits. I went in to see Senator Bennett, whom I watched on the floor talking about health care, and he sounded like someone who might be interested, but I still thought it was a long shot. I said: My God, he is a really conservative fellow from Utah. He and a progressive fellow from Oregon probably don't have much in common, except for the fact that they are both tall. I talked to him in his office. He later said to a newspaper person: I gave the closest thing that you do in the Senate to convey that I really wasn't interested because you never say no, especially to somebody sincere. He said that a number of times. So he thought about it, and he spent time talking to people. I remember this as if it were yesterday because his seat was across the aisle, just a few seats away. He and Senator Rockefeller were the tallest Senators at the time; Senator Kerry and I kind of came in--I don't know--third or fourth or something like that. He came bounding over and he said: I want to do this with you. And I did a kind of double take because I thought, I don't think I am hearing this right. He said: Yes, you are talking about how the Democrats are right about universal coverage, and I am going to have to get my side kind of acclimated to that, but you acknowledge that there ought to be a role somehow, some way for the private sector. I said: You bet, that was the point. He said: I am in. So one of his newspapers--in looking at all the kind things that have been said--said that Bob Bennett did so much good work. We hope what his career stood for was that you could find common ground and that the Senate would remember going forward that bipartisanship is not a death sentence. Bipartisanship is a chance to find a way to solve problems, whether it was Y2K, which was exciting, or something else. I think it is worth mentioning, because I did a stint as chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, that Bob Bennett put together a truly impressive public lands bill. It involved one of his fast-growing counties--Washington County--and several hundred thousand acres of wilderness, of land management, by the Bureau of Land Management and the National Park Service alike. Suffice it to say that when I heard about it for the first time, Senator Bennett asked for my help, and I thought, man, there is no way he is going to be able to move something like this because you had all the progressive environmental organizations, you had lots of people from the counties who of course resisted these sorts of things, and you had lots of challenges in the West putting together public lands policies. We saw it again here recently in eastern Oregon. But Bob Bennett pulled it off. He pulled it off because he pretty much just smothered both sides with attention. Each side would have a point. He would respond. He would send his staff down to talk to people. And those who wouldn't normally possibly agree came together and found common ground on public lands policy. I remember because the President signed it in 2009, Senator Bennett and I were in the back--I guess largely because we were the tallest-- and we talked about how unlikely it was that we would be there and that we would have all of these opportunities to serve together. As we remember Bob Bennett, my hope is we will understand, as did Senator Bennett, that, much like today, neither side had enough votes to get everything it wanted. That was the case then, and it continues to be the case today. He understood that no single party had a lock on all the good ideas, but rather than just shrug his shoulders or go out and race for a microphone in order to score some sort of quick political advantage, Bob Bennett, in his career in the Senate, stood for what we call principled bipartisanship. I imagine there are going to be a number of farewells this week to a wonderful friend, a terrific Senator, in my view, and an even better person. I just hope that apropos of what we have seen with Senator Feinstein and Senator Alexander, as they approach another big vote, let's put as much of our time and effort into finding common ground as possible. Sometimes it can't be done. I get that, and Bob Bennett did too. But certainly we can put vastly more time and effort into finding common ground, pursuing what Bob Bennett was all about because he was a U.S. Senator who gave public service a good name. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN. Thank you.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Reauthorization of the Fisheries Restoration and Irrigation Mitigation Act of 2000, also referred to as FRIMA. This Act was established to support healthy fish populations while simultaneously allowing for continued water diversions for irrigation and other uses in the Pacific Northwest. I championed this program's last reauthorization in 2009, and I can say with certainty that the pressing need for FRIMA has not gone away. Throughout the Pacific Northwest there is a critical need for projects that improve fish passage without compromising important water diversion needs for agriculture and other uses. The sustainable coexistence of continued water diversions and healthy fish populations can be achieved through a number of interventions, such as installation of fish screens, removal of fish passage barriers, and carrying out inventories to better understand needs and priorities. The technology and the knowledge needed to carry out these projects are at our finger tips; the means, however, is not. That is why FRIMA is such an important program for the Pacific Northwest. The act, overseen by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, provides a Federal cost-share on the order of 65 percent to fund fish passage and fish screen projects at water diversion and irrigation sites in Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and western Montana. This voluntary cost-shared program authorizes $25 million in Federal funds, to be equally shared among the 4 States, that can be leveraged to make these essential projects to improve fish passage and install fish screens come to fruition. FRIMA has a history of demonstrated success in Oregon and throughout the Pacific Northwest. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 127 projects have been funded through FRIMA to date. These projects have reopened more than 1,130 miles of habitat to fish passage. In total, 56 fish passage barriers have been removed, 130 water diversion sites have been screened, and 18 fish passage evaluations have been completed. This program has led to multiple accomplishments for communities in the Pacific Northwest, but there are still tens of thousands of unscreened water diversions in Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and western Montana. There is still work to be done, and FRIMA could provide the means to continue to make a difference for sustainable fisheries and water management. At its core, FRIMA is centered on the concept of collaboration. This is a program borne through bi-partisan and multi-sectoral support. FRIMA is embraced by water users, farmers, fisheries managers and conservation organizations alike. The economic and ecological integrity of our region depends on resilient fisheries and sustainable management of water resources, and FRIMA offers a means to concurrently make positive strides in sustainably managing both our water diversions and our treasured fishery resources. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to warn of a gathering threat to American's most fundamental constitutional right; that is, the right to vote. Fifty-one years ago, President Johnson urged the Congress to pass the Voting Rights Act. In the face of implacable opposition from Southern States, President Johnson laid out the stakes. He said: Every American must have an equal right to vote. There is no excuse which can excuse the denial of that right. There is no duty which weighs more heavily on us than the duty we have to ensure that right. Sadly, half a century after that law began to remove the most offensive obstacles to voting, Americans now face new barriers to exercising their fundamental right to vote. Across our land, there are stories of long lines, inexplicable purges of voter rolls, and new requirements that make it still harder for our people to vote. There is absolutely no excuse for accepting this sorry state of affairs. There is no excuse for citizens in Arizona to wait 5 hours to cast their ballot. There is no excuse for citizens in Rhode Island to find two out of every three polling places have closed. There is no excuse whatsoever for poor communities and minority communities across America to see their polling places shuttered. Seniors and disabled Americans should not have to wait in long lines or struggle to reach polling places in America. Working parents should not have to choose between going to work and going to vote. Voting should not be a test of endurance. It should not be a Kafkaesque experience in defeating bureaucracy and wading through redtape. Increasingly, too many voters show up at the polls on election day, only to find that their name--somehow, magically--has gone missing from the voter rolls or their ID does not meet some new, even more burdensome, even more restrictive requirement. There is no excuse for our government to turn away citizens and to say their vote does not count because of a clerical error or an unjust technicality. These grossly unfair obstacles have sprouted like weeds across our country ever since the Supreme Court overturned large portions of the Voting Rights Act in 2013. According to the Brennan Center for Justice, just this year, 17 States have passed new laws or rules to make it harder for their citizens to vote. Let me repeat that. Seventeen States in America, just this year, have passed new laws, new rules, and new hurdles for our people who want to vote. Thankfully, there is a solution. My home State of Oregon has led the country in making voting more accessible. In Oregon, every voter receives a ballot 2 or 3 weeks before election day. Ballots should be arriving in mailboxes across the State over the next few days. Every Oregonian has ample time to research candidates and issues. Rather than waiting in long lines, Oregonians can mail their ballot back or drop it off at ballot collection sites, many of which are open 24/7. Nobody has to take time off from work just to exercise his or her constitutional right. So let me repeat. In our State, we have made this work. Every voter gets a ballot 2 or 3 weeks before an election date. Now, vote-by-mail is not going to stop every State legislature in America from devising new ways to suppress voter turnout. Certainly, some State officials in our country have worked very hard to dream up new ways to limit the franchise. But here is why the Oregon antidote is so important. If there is a problem, our State gives voters more time to fight back. When Americans have 2 or 3 weeks to vote, they will have more time to challenge registration problems. There is more time for citizens to defend their rights. Oregon has been voting by mail since I was first elected to the Senate in 1996, and we went to all vote-by-mail in 2000. Since then, we have had consistently higher voter turnout rates than other parts of the country. We have consistently had voter turnout rates that are among the highest in the Nation. Oregon voting rates are especially high among young people and in midterm elections. As an added benefit--this should appeal to all Senators--studies have shown that it saves money, to boot. So you have a system that voters like, gives them more time to reflect, is more efficient, and saves money, to boot. That is a pretty appealing trifecta, it seems to me, for democracy. So my proposition today is that the rest of the country ought to follow Oregon's lead, and all Americans, from one end of the country to another, ought to have the chance to vote by mail. To me, this just is common sense. In fact, over the years, there were questions about who benefited from vote-by-mail? In fact, Oregonians put it on the ballot, because they said that everybody benefits from it. There was support all across the political spectrum. So today, I rolled out a new proposal for a national vote-by-mail. It is built on the Oregon system. The plan is simple. Every voter in a Federal election will receive a ballot in the mail. The Federal Government, through the Postal Service, would assist States with the cost of mailing ballots to registered voters. States can keep their current polling practices if they wish. But those States that choose a full vote-by-mail system are going to see their election costs drop and drop significantly. My hope is that this proposal ignites a new campaign across the country to make it easier, not harder, for Americans to vote. Vote-by-mail is a first step in fighting back against those who would disenfranchise their fellow citizens to gain a political edge. For instance, in my view it also ought to be easier for Americans to register to vote. Again, my home State leads the way. Since January, every eligible voter is automatically registered to vote, eliminating extra trips to the motor vehicles department or the county clerk's office. In my view our Governor, Gov. Kate Brown, deserves enormous credit for leading the effort to turn this particular idea, this particular reform, into law. I know many of my colleagues and many voters are cynical about the chances of passing real reforms in this partisan day and age. My view is, voting rights are too important to abandon the field to special interests who would manipulate our government. That is why I mentioned that in Oregon there was some initial debate with respect to who might benefit, who might get a little bit of a partisan edge on the other side, and Oregon voters said: Nothing doing. We all think this is in our interests, making it easier to vote, making it easier to correct an error, and cheaper than the alternatives. This afternoon I urge my colleagues and voters to take advantage of this opportunity to promote real reform, reform where we have hard evidence that shows it actually works, to make sure every citizen in America who wants to vote has that opportunity. Oregon once again paves the way to making sure there are real solutions to an enormous challenge. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Reauthorization of the Fisheries Restoration and Irrigation Mitigation Act of 2000, also referred to as FRIMA. This Act was established to support healthy fish populations while simultaneously allowing for continued water diversions for irrigation and other uses in the Pacific Northwest. I championed this program's last reauthorization in 2009, and I can say with certainty that the pressing need for FRIMA has not gone away. Throughout the Pacific Northwest there is a critical need for projects that improve fish passage without compromising important water diversion needs for agriculture and other uses. The sustainable coexistence of continued water diversions and healthy fish populations can be achieved through a number of interventions, such as installation of fish screens, removal of fish passage barriers, and carrying out inventories to better understand needs and priorities. The technology and the knowledge needed to carry out these projects are at our finger tips; the means, however, is not. That is why FRIMA is such an important program for the Pacific Northwest. The act, overseen by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, provides a Federal cost-share on the order of 65 percent to fund fish passage and fish screen projects at water diversion and irrigation sites in Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and western Montana. This voluntary cost-shared program authorizes $25 million in Federal funds, to be equally shared among the 4 States, that can be leveraged to make these essential projects to improve fish passage and install fish screens come to fruition. FRIMA has a history of demonstrated success in Oregon and throughout the Pacific Northwest. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 127 projects have been funded through FRIMA to date. These projects have reopened more than 1,130 miles of habitat to fish passage. In total, 56 fish passage barriers have been removed, 130 water diversion sites have been screened, and 18 fish passage evaluations have been completed. This program has led to multiple accomplishments for communities in the Pacific Northwest, but there are still tens of thousands of unscreened water diversions in Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and western Montana. There is still work to be done, and FRIMA could provide the means to continue to make a difference for sustainable fisheries and water management. At its core, FRIMA is centered on the concept of collaboration. This is a program borne through bi-partisan and multi-sectoral support. FRIMA is embraced by water users, farmers, fisheries managers and conservation organizations alike. The economic and ecological integrity of our region depends on resilient fisheries and sustainable management of water resources, and FRIMA offers a means to concurrently make positive strides in sustainably managing both our water diversions and our treasured fishery resources. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, according to the Forest Service--and we checked with them this morning--there is right now an 11,000-acre fire burning in the Shenandoah National Park in Virginia. This is just April, not the time when one normally thinks you are going to have fires when the fire season is on. But there is a fire burning in the Shenandoah National Park in Virginia that has already cost more than $3 million. This is the second largest fire in Shenandoah National Park history. I have come to the floor this afternoon to once again make the case for the Senate, on a bipartisan basis--Democrats and Republicans--to come together to fix this dysfunctional system of fighting fire in America. I am going to describe it, but let me talk first a little bit about the consequences. In the American West, we used to talk about the seasons in a way that Americans had done for decades and decades: harvesting crops in the fall, skiing in the winter, fishing during the spring salmon runs, and camping in the summers. We fought fire during the wildfire season. But when Americans in the West talk about the seasons now, they are talking about the seasons of yesteryear. That is because the wildfire season raging across our forests and special places is no longer limited to a single time of the year. Fighting fires has become a continuous battle virtually year-round throughout the country. That is why this fire burning in the Shenandoah National Park ought to be a wake-up call once again to everyone to understand how important it is to fix this broken system of fighting fire, because the funding system for doing so is leading to dysfunction throughout the Forest Service and contributing to the breakdown of the national forest management that is needed to prevent catastrophic wildfires in the first place. According to the Forest Service, 1.4 million acres have already burned across America this year. That is more than twice the 10-year average for this time of year. These numbers show, in my view, how important it is that urgent action be taken to fix the way we fund wildfire fighting operations. This is something that Senator Crapo and I have been working on for some time. With the support of scores of organizations, well over 200, a significant number of bipartisan Senators and a significant number of bipartisan House Members have all joined in this effort, because it is not just the West that has been impacted. Forest Service work in States that manage timber sales, stream restoration, trail maintenance, and recreation get shortchanged when money has been diverted to fighting wildfires. I was particularly struck last year when we had the good fortune of having the senior Senator from New York, Mr. Schumer, join as a cosponsor of our legislation. The reason he did so is because this absolutely dysfunctional system of fighting fires has resulted in important priorities for New York State not being in a position to secure the funding they need. That is because the rising costs of fighting fires keeps raiding all these other programs in the Forest Service that are needed to help prevent fires down the road. The raids take place two different ways. Certainly, in my part of the world, we are very troubled by the fact that you have prevention getting short shrift. Then it gets really hot and dry. We have lots of thunderstorms in our part of the world, and all of a sudden we have an inferno on our hands. Then what happens is the agencies end up borrowing from the prevention fund to put the fire out, and the problem gets worse because you have repeatedly shorted the prevention program. This is what is called fire borrowing, and it happens not just in the West. That is why the senior Senator from New York wanted to be a cosponsor of our legislation, because programs that were important in New York State, thousands and thousands of miles away from the forests of eastern and central Oregon--those were a problem for programs he cared about and to secure their funding as a result of this dysfunctional system, just like it has been for people in the West. It is time for the Congress to find a solution to ensure that, one, wildfires can be fought; and, two, to control the cost of fighting these wildfires by better preparing our forests and making them healthier. I am very pleased that the chair of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, the committee I had the honor of chairing in the past, Senator Murkowski, and Ranking Member Cantwell are committed to working on this issue, and I wanted to once again reaffirm my commitment. I know Senator Crapo shares this view to work with them to find a solution to wildfire funding that can pass in this Congress. I certainly have some ideas, and I am very interested in welcoming my colleagues' ideas and I have been for some time. For example, last year in the summer, it was pretty clear that it was going to be a tough fire season. What I and others essentially sought to do was to find a way to get our colleagues working together to try to find some common ground and get this resolved. We couldn't quite get it done. We are now going to be at this day in and day out, week in and week out. Senator Crapo and I will be working with our colleagues and their staff on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee and on the Budget Committee and with Members from the other body to find a solution that works for all sides of the issue. We saw last summer that this was going to be a problem. A big group of us got together and said we have to get it resolved. We couldn't quite thread the needle. This time we have to make sure that gets done. There are not a lot of certainties in life, but the fire season is one of them, and the Congress simply cannot let this problem continue. I wanted to come to the floor, particularly today, to take note of the fact that the fire in the Shenandoah area ought to be a wake-up call to everybody. If they are having one of the biggest fires they have ever had this early in April, that is a signal of what is to come. It has been the story of summer after summer. Now we are learning, as I indicated earlier--and it appears it is not just in the West--that we are thinking about the seasons and talking about the seasons of yesteryear because now it is fire season all year round. My colleague is here. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Kelsey Avery, Leigh Stuckhardt, Matthew Fuentes, and Luke Alo, fellows for the Senate Finance Committee, and Julia Bradley-Cook, Ryan Matheny, and Katherine Tsantiris, fellows in my personal office, be granted floor privileges for the duration of the 114th Congress.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I am submitting a resolution to designate May 21, 2016, as Kids to Parks Day. From the Painted Hills to Crater Lake and from Mt. Hood to the Oregon Caves, nature has given Oregon many wondrous treasures in every corner of my State. As a whole, Oregon boasts some of the most beautiful landscapes, varied ecosystems, and unrivaled outdoor recreation opportunities in the nation. Given Oregon's unmatched scenery, enjoying the outdoors is imbedded in the DNA of Oregonians, and opportunities to get outside and enjoy our treasures brings in visitors from all over the world. Kids to Parks Day builds on Oregon's outdoor culture, inspiring children and families to spend time together, enjoy nature and parks, and recreate on public lands across the country. Over 70,000 people have pledged to participate in this year's Kids to Parks Day, and over 200 cities have proclaimed May 21 as the day in which to celebrate Those who choose to celebrate Kids to Parks Day will find that communities all across the country offer a variety of natural resources and public lands--often with free access--that promote healthy outdoor recreation and empower young people to become stewards of the environment. I am pleased to be joined on this resolution by my colleague from Utah, Senator Orrin Hatch, who has worked with me over the years to promote healthy recreation. This resolution promotes the values of healthy outdoor recreation and environmental stewardship, for kids of all ages, by encouraging them to get outside and visit local parks and public lands. Research shows that outdoor recreation has positive impacts on children's performance in school and their overall health. In addition, when kids have a connection to nature, they are more likely to get involved in efforts to preserve public lands for future generations of young conservationists. This resolution--designating Kids to Parks Day--is about more than just one day of recreation. It is about promoting the year-round use of parks and public lands by kids and their families. While National Parks are the crown jewels of this country's parks system, State and neighborhood parks serve as important year-round conduits to the outdoors, attracting the everyday dog walker, jogger, and birdwatcher. Neighborhood parks are easily accessible, and can broaden the appreciation for nature and the outdoors in young people, while fostering a safe setting for healthy adventure. Local parks and the miles of trails on Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management land, not to mention the widely-used reservoirs managed by the Army Corps of Engineers, are the backbone that supports recreation and access to public lands all across the country. Kids to Parks Day recognizes the significance of all open spaces and the need to preserve these areas for the health and education of young people. Today, I am pleased to celebrate the importance of our public lands and the importance of recreation. I want to take this time to encourage children and their families to spend time in the outdoors and celebrate Kids to Parks Day on Saturday, May 21, 2016.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, over the last few decades, China has used market-distorting subsidies and industrial policies to repeatedly prop up their own industries and rip off American jobs. Steel, tires, solar panels--the story plays out again and again. Too often China's economy is not run by the markets; it is run by government committee. So even though its own State Council has called out the problem of severe excess capacities, China clings to the same old tired and destructive policies. Today I want to address what is happening now with China's huge overcapacity of aluminum. The amount of aluminum Chinese smelters are churning out has gone up by more than 1,200 percent in a decade and a half. In 2000, they produced 2.5 million metric tons. In 2015 China produced 32 million metric tons. When you create a glut of aluminum production the way China has, you send the markets into turmoil and you do enormous harm to American workers. I spoke last week at a public hearing held by the U.S. Trade Representative and the International Trade Commission about how the overproduction of steel in China is an urgent and immediate threat to steel jobs here in our country. While China's steel mills are churning out more steel than ever, American steel towns are suffering or worse. Thousands of jobs nationwide have been lost just in the last year. Even though one-third of all steel produced today has no buyer, China keeps adding and adding to the glut by producing more steel. The same story is played out in the case of primary aluminum. There is a huge overcapacity in China that, once again, is driven by market- distorting government policies. It has unleashed a chain of events that can end in economic devastation across this country. Global aluminum prices have already plummeted, undercutting our American companies. Between the start of 2011 and this upcoming June, the lights will have gone out at nearly two-thirds of the aluminum smelters in the United States. More than 6,500 jobs--good American jobs--will have been lost. You can bet that sooner or later the damage will ripple downstream through the entire aluminum industry, which employs three-quarters of a million Americans either directly or indirectly. In my judgment, the United States is badly in need of a safeguard against this economic tidal wave. That is why I have chosen to stand with my friend Leo Gerard, president of the United Steelworkers, and the steelworkers. They filed a petition for relief under section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974 today. Without an immediate economic bulwark, the United States is in danger of losing thousands of good family-wage jobs across our country. It is my view that the administration should act in this case as soon as possible to defend our workers and our businesses from economic ruin. The United States and our trading partners must ramp up the pressure on China to stop overproduction, and our trade enforcers have to take on the trade cheats and use every single trade tool in the toolbox, including the ENFORCE Act, the Leveling the Playing Field Act, and the other measures my colleagues and I on the Finance Committee fought to get signed into law over the last year. I firmly believe workers in Oregon and across this country can compete with anybody in the world, but the United States cannot afford to sit idly by and watch China's destructive policies cause our aluminum industry to be wiped out. As the steelworkers have pointed out repeatedly, enough is enough. Leo Gerard and those steelworkers are standing up and fighting back, and I am honored to stand with them. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I am proud to join Oregonians all across our State in marking the 75th anniversary of the Oregon Air National Guard. For three-quarters of a century, thousands of Oregon's sons and daughters have joined the Air National Guard, dedicating themselves to defense of the Constitution of the United States and service to their fellow Americans and Oregonians. Today I want to take a moment, here on the Senate floor to thank them for their service and for their sacrifices on our behalf. The Oregon Air National Guard traces its beginnings back to April 1941, when a small group of 110 airmen boldly stepped forward and volunteered for duty in the months before the U.S. entered the Second World War. Initially activated as the Oregon National Guard Air Corps 123rd Observation Squadron, their first mission was to conduct maritime surveillance of the continental United States following the attack on Pearl Harbor. In 1947, following the allied victory in World War II, Congress officially established the U.S. Air Force as a separate military service, apart from the U.S. Army, and designated the Air National Guard as a reserve component. In the decades since, the Oregon Air National Guard has played a vital national defense role in the Korean war, the Vietnam war, the Cold War, and in many global operations in the wake of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Today's Oregon Air National Guard units include the 142nd Fighter Wing in Portland, the 173rd Fighter Wing in Klamath Falls, and the Joint Forces Headquarters in Salem. Oregon's F-15s serve on guard 24 hours a day, 365 days a year to defend the skies above America's western coast. In addition to protecting that airspace, Oregon airmen are the sole providers of F-15 flight training for the U.S. Air Force. But Oregon's airmen and women aren't simply ready to respond in times of conflict; they also answer the Governor's call during natural disasters to protect Oregonians from floods, forest fires, volcanic eruptions, and medical emergencies. Through the State partnership program, Oregon Guardsmen also have played a powerful role to improve relations with our State's partners in Vietnam and Bangladesh. In doing so, they demonstrate the best of American generosity in communities throughout the world. The strength of any organization is its people and here the men and women of the Oregon Air National Guard, like its counterpart the Oregon Army Guard, are at the top of their class. Oregon guardsmen come from diverse backgrounds and bring top notch private sector skills to bear on behalf of the State and the country. The nearly 2,300 men and women now serving in the Oregon Air National Guard contribute to the long legacy of volunteerism and community service for which the organization is already so well known. As a Senator, it has always been one of my highest honors to represent the men and women of the Oregon Air and Army National Guards in Congress, and as an Oregonian, I am so proud of today's Oregon Air National Guard and its rich heritage. It is a privilege to serve these heroes--active, retired, and those who have given their lives in defense of our nation and helping others. I know I speak for people in Oregon, across the country, and around the world when I thank the Oregon Air National Guard for 75 years of fabulous service, congratulate them on this historic milestone, and wish them continued success in the years and decades to come.

Mr. WYDEN

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

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today Beverly Cleary, a storied and award- winning author, is going to be celebrating her 100th birthday. Throughout her 66-year career, Beverly Cleary has written more than 40 children's books, selling over 90 million copies by enchanting readers of all ages with the escapades of Ramona, Henry, Ralph S. Mouse, and so many wonderful characters. With enduring and relatable themes of adventure, adolescence, and friendship, Ms. Cleary's novels have withstood the test of time and have established their place in the pages of Oregon's cultural heritage. Beverly Cleary was born on April 12, 1916, in McMinnville, OR. At an early age, she moved to Portland, where she developed a passion for Oregon that shines throughout the pages of her stories. For years, Beverly Cleary's characters have called Portland home, and for the countless children who grew up with her writing, Ms. Cleary's stories have been their haven. Her book series ``Ramona'' and ``Henry Huggins'' are both set in Portland and continue to serve as important threads throughout Oregon's literary fabric. Ms. Cleary's impact on the State of Oregon and the city of Portland have not gone unnoticed. Her honors include a public K-8 school in Portland, the Beverly Cleary School, which some of my staff actually attended, and a public art installation at the Hollywood branch of the Multnomah County Library which features many of her books' neighborhood landmarks. Portland's Grant Park is home to a public sculpture garden with bronze statues of Ramona Quimby, Henry Huggins, and Ribsy. It is Beverly Cleary's unbound passion and dedication to children's literature that have earned her numerous literary awards, including a National Book Award, a Newberry Medal, and a National Medal of Art. In 2000 the Library of Congress even named her a ``Living Legend.'' Just as original Beverly Cleary fans enjoyed reading about the lives and adventures of her characters, each new generation of young Beverly Cleary readers finds a similar connection with those same characters. Ms. Cleary's books have sparked the imagination of so many children across America, helping instill literary skills that last a lifetime. When it comes to literacy, the importance of reading at an early age simply cannot be overstated. An early introduction to reading is one of the most significant factors influencing a child's success in school. It is linked to better speech and communication skills, improved logical thinking, and increased academic excellence. It is clear that young children who develop a love for reading have an upper hand both in the classroom and later in life. Thanks to Ms. Cleary, generations of kids across the world can experience Oregon from a literary perspective. One would be hard- pressed to find another author who has made such a lasting impact on children's literature. So it is an enormous honor and a great personal pleasure for me to come to the Senate floor this afternoon to honor Beverly Cleary's contribution to literary history, to Oregon, and to children everywhere, and to wish her a very happy 100th birthday. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, last summer, I set out on a tour of Oregon's Seven Wonders to hear from Oregonians in every corner of the State about how to improve access to outdoor recreation. Recreation is a big economic multiplier for my State, and Oregonians are the true experts on--outdoor recreation--it is in our DNA. Oregon's recreation and tourism economy generates an estimated $10 billion a year in direct economic impact for the state and supports more than 101,000 jobs--enough people essentially to fill every seat in Autzen and Reser stadiums, home to the University of Oregon Ducks and Oregon State Beavers. Recreation supports communities and businesses large and small throughout urban and rural Oregon and can have astounding benefits on veterans, youth, and seniors. Not only do you have outfitters and the crafts people who produce recreation products, like canoes, kayaks, bikes, and fishing poles, recreation supports the broader travel and tourism industry including equipment retailers and gear shops. But the benefit doesn't stop when the sun goes down. Then visitors go to the brewpubs and restaurants, and they stay overnight at the hotels and the motels. So what we need to do is ensure that recreation is a higher priority for the future so it can continue to boost economies large and small. Yet on my tour of Oregon's Seven Wonders, I consistently heard one troubling theme that's yanking our recreation economy's potential back down to earth. Simply put, red tape is tying down the opportunities for Oregon recreation and tourism to lift off to even greater heights. Outfitters and guides must navigate confusing permit processes only to wait months or years for their permits to get approved, and outdoor enthusiasts searching for outdoor recreation opportunities often get lost in the paperwork before they ever hit the trails. That is why today I am introducing the Recreation Not Red-Tape, RNR, Act to ensure that recreation is a priority for Federal agencies and to cut the bureaucratic red tape in the recreation permitting process to make accessing outdoor recreation opportunities easier and much more fun. I gathered input from Oregonians who enjoy public lands, entrepreneurs in the outdoor travel and tourism industry, and community leaders from Oregon and across the Nation. The bill focuses on making sure everyone has easier access to the outdoors, recognizing and building on recreation as an economic driver, and making the repair and management of our recreational public lands easier. Additionally, the bill supports improving access to outdoor recreation for veterans, seniors, and youth. My friend and colleague, Representative Earl Blumenauer, is today introducing the House companion of the Recreation Not Red-Tape Act. The bill is supported by over 50 Oregon and national organizations, from American Alpine Club to Vet Voice.