Ron Wyden

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I wish to express my appreciation to the students, parents, staff, and alumni of the Head Start Program and to join them in celebrating Head Start Awareness Month. The dedicated individuals at Head Start have served our Nation's most vulnerable children and families for 50 years. Since its founding in 1965, this program has provided comprehensive social and emotional development services to children from birth to age 5. Because of Head Start, many young parents have been able to get the support they need during the crucial first years of their child's life. These services go far beyond what any parenting book could ever achieve. Head Start staff provides real-life guidance for young parents who, for example, may need the name of a local dentist or help finding adequate housing to keep their families healthy and safe. In Oregon, we have 336 program locations that enrolled more than 13,000 individuals and families last year. You can find a Head Start location anywhere from Clatskanie, OR, all the way to Chiloquin. Earlier this month, Clatsop County celebrated Head Start's anniversary by holding simultaneous block parties at the county's three locations. These Head Start and Early Head Start centers are helping Oregon families who want to see their children reach their full potential. The Head Start Program fosters literacy and prepares Oregon's children for success in school. Early learning through Head Start can put children on a path toward high school graduation and a better future. In my view, the Head Start Program is a critical investment in the development of our Nation's youngest children. I speak today to honor those who are working to make a difference for our young people at all the Head Start locations in Oregon and across the country. I look forward to working with my Senate colleagues to continue to support early childhood education programs like Head Start.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I hope colleagues will vote no. I have three quick points. No. 1, the chairman of the committee--and we work together often--acknowledged that this substitute would not have prevented these major hacks that we are all so concerned about. No. 2, once again we have heard an attack on the country's major technology companies. All of them, all of them, colleagues, are opposed to this legislation. We are talking about Apple and Dropbox and Twitter. The list goes on and on. Why? Because these companies have to be concerned about both cyber security and protecting their employees and their customers privacy. Unfortunately, this legislation does very little to protect cyber security, which has now been acknowledged by the lead sponsor of the legislation and has major problems with respect to protecting the liberty of the American people. I urge colleagues to vote no.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I would like to inform my colleague, the distinguished chairman of our Intelligence Committee, I am always thinking about the history of the committee. I believe Chairman Burr, the ranking minority member Senator Feinstein, and I have been on the Intelligence Committee almost as long as anybody in history. I always like to work with my colleague. This is an area where we have a difference of opinion. I am going to try to outline what that is and still try to describe how we might be able to work it out.

Mr. WYDEN. Of course.

Mr. WYDEN. Well said. There is nothing better than having Carolina barbecue unless it is Oregon salmon. Yes, we old jocks, former football players and basketball players, we have tough debates and then we go out and enjoy a meal. Here is how I would like to start this afternoon. The distinguished chairman of the committee is absolutely correct in saying that cyber security is a very substantial problem. My constituents know a lot about that because one of our prominent employers, SolarWorld, a major manufacturer in renewable energy, was hacked by the Chinese simply because this employer was trying to protect its rights under trade law. In fact, our government indicted the People's Liberation Army for their hacking into this major Oregon employer. So no question that cyber security is a major problem. Second, there is no question in my mind that information sharing can be very valuable in a number of instances. If we know, for example, someone is associated with hackers, malware, this sort of thing, of course it is important to promote that kind of sharing. The difference of opinion is that I believe this bill is badly flawed because it doesn't pass the test of showing that when we share information, we have to have robust privacy standards or else millions of Americans are going to look up and they are going to say that is really not cyber security. They are going to say it is a surveillance bill. So that is what the difference of opinion is. Amendment No. 2621, as Modified Let me turn to how I have been trying to improve the legislation. I am going to speak for a few minutes on my amendment No. 2621 to the bill that we have been discussing and that is now pending in the Senate. Obviously, anybody who has been watching the debate on this cyber security bill has seen what we would have to call a spirited exchange of views. Senators are debating the substance of the legislation and, as I just indicated to Chairman Burr and I have indicated to ranking minority member Senator Feinstein, there is agreement on a wide variety of points and issues. Both supporters and opponents of the bill agree that sharing information about cyber security threats, samples of malware, information about malicious hackers, and all of this makes sense and one ought to try to promote more of it. Both supporters and opponents now agree that giving corporations immunity from customer lawsuits isn't going to stop sophisticated attacks such as the OPM personnel records breach. I am very glad that there has been agreement on that point recently, because proponents of the bill sometimes said that their legislation would stop hacks such as the one that took place at OPM. When technologists reviewed it, that was clearly not the case, and the claim has been withdrawn that somehow this bill would prevent hacks like we saw at OPM. The differences of opinion between supporters and opponents of the bill--who do agree on a variety of these issues--surround the likely privacy impact of the bill. Supporters have essentially argued that the benefits of this bill, perhaps, are limited--particularly now that they have withdrawn the claim that this would help against an OPM attack-- but that every little bit helps. But there is no downside to them to just pass the bill. It makes sense. Pass the bill. There is no downside. Opponents of the bill, who grow in number virtually every day, have been arguing that the bill is likely to have a significant negative impact on the personal privacy of a large number of Americans and that this greatly outweighs the limited security benefits. If an information sharing bill doesn't include adequate privacy protections, I am telling you, colleagues, I think those proponents are going to have people wake up and say: I really don't see this as a cyber security bill, but it really looks to me like a surveillance bill by another name. (Mr. TOOMEY assumed the Chair.) Colleagues who are following this and looking at the bill may be trying to sort through this discussion between proponents and opponents. To help clarify the debate, I would like to get into the text of the bill for just a minute. If colleagues look at page 17 of the Burr-Feinstein substitute amendment, which is the latest version with respect to this bill, Senators are going to see a key section of the bill. This is the section that discusses the removal of personal information when data is shared with the government. The section says very clearly that in order to get immunity from a lawsuit a private company has to review the data they would provide and remove any information the company knows is personal information unrelated to a cyber security threat. This language, in my view, clearly creates an incentive for companies to dump large quantities of data over to the government with only a cursory review. As long as that company isn't certain that they are providing unrelated personal information, that company gets immunity from lawsuits. Some companies may choose to be more careful than that, but this legislation and the latest version--the Burr-Feinstein substitute amendment--would not require it. This bill says with respect to personal data: When in doubt, you can hand it over. My amendment No. 2621 is an alternative. It is very simple. It is less than a page long. It would amend this section that I have just described to say that when companies review the data they provide, they ought to ``remove, to the extent feasible, any personal information of or identifying a specific individual that is not necessary to describe or identify a cybersecurity threat.'' The alternative that I am offering gives companies a real responsibility to filter out unrelated personal information before that company hands over large volumes of personal data about customers or people to the government. The sponsors of the bill have said that they believe that companies should only give the government information that is necessary for cyber security and should remove unrelated personal information. I agree with them, but for reasons that I have just described, I would say respectfully that the current version of this legislation does not accomplish that goal, and that is why I believe the amendment I have offered is so important. For an example of how this might work in practice, imagine that a health insurance company finds out that millions of its customers' records have been stolen. If that company has any evidence about who the hackers were or how they stole this information, of course it makes sense to share that information with the government. But that company shouldn't simply say here you go, and hand millions of its customers' medical records over for distribution to a broad array of government agencies. The records of the victims of a hack should not be treated the same way that information about the hacker is treated. Companies should be required to make a reasonable effort to remove personal information that is not needed for cyber security before they hand information over to the government. That is what my amendment seeks to achieve. That is not what is in the substitute amendment. Furthermore, if colleagues hear the sponsors of the substitute saying this bill's privacy protections are strong and you have heard me making the case that they really don't have any meaningful teeth and they are too weak, don't just take my word for it. Listen to all of the leading technology companies that have come out against the current version of this legislation. These companies know about the importance of protecting both cyber security and individual privacy. The reason they know--and this is the case in Pennsylvania, Oregon, and everywhere else--is that these companies have to manage the challenge every single day. Companies in Pennsylvania and Oregon have to ensure they are protecting both cyber security and individual privacy. Those companies know that customer confidence is their lifeblood and that the only way to ensure customer confidence is to convince customers that if their product is going to be used, their information will be protected, both from malicious hackers and from unnecessary collections by their government. I would note that there is another reason why it is important to get the privacy protections I am offering in my amendment at this time. The companies that I just described are competing on a global playing field. These companies have to deal with the impression that U.S. laws do not adequately protect their customers' information. Right now these companies--companies that are located in Pennsylvania and Oregon--are dealing with the fallout of a decision by a European court to strike down the safe harbor data agreement between the United States and the European Union. The court's ruling was based on the argument that U.S. laws in their present form do not adequately protect customer data. Now, I strongly disagree with this ruling. At the same time, I would say to my colleagues and to the Presiding Officer--he and I have worked closely on international trade as members of the Finance Committee--and I would say to colleagues who are following this international trade question and the question of the European Union striking down the safe harbor for our privacy laws, in my view this bill is likely to make things even more difficult for American companies that are trying to get access to those customers in Europe. To give just a sampling of the leading companies that have come out against the CISA legislation, let me briefly call the roll. There is the Apple company. They have millions of customers. They know a great deal about what we have to do to deal with malicious hackers and to protect privacy. There is also Dropbox, Twitter, Salesforce, Yelp, Reddit, and the Wikimedia Foundation. I point to the strong statement by the Computer & Communications Industry Association. Their members include Google, Amazon, Facebook, Microsoft, Yahoo, Netflix, eBay, and PayPal. Those individual companies I have mentioned have millions of customers. The organization that speaks for them says: ``CISA's prescribed mechanism for sharing of Cyber threat information does not sufficiently protect users' privacy.'' On top of this, there has been widespread opposition from a larger spectrum of privacy advocacy organizations. Here the groups range from the Open Technology Institute to the American Library Association. I was particularly struck by the American Library Association's comments in opposition to this bill. I think the leadership said-- paraphrasing--something to the effect of when the American Library Association opposes legislation that authors say will promote information sharing, they indicate there was a little something more to it than what the sponsors are claiming. Wrapping up, I want to make clear, as I said yesterday, that I appreciate that the bipartisan leadership of our committee has tried to respond to these concerns. They know that these large companies with expertise in collecting data and promoting cyber security have all come out against the bill. I heard talk about privacy protections. I don't know of a single organization that is looked to by either side of the aisle, Democrats and Republicans, for expertise and privacy that has come out in favor of the bill. So the sponsors of this legislation and the authors of the substitute amendment, which I have tried to describe at length here this afternoon, are correct in saying that they have made some changes, but those changes do not go to the core of the bill. For example, the amendment I have described would really, in my view, fix this bill by ensuring that there was a significant effort to filter out unrelated personal and private information that was sent to the government under the bill. So I hope Senators will listen to what groups and the companies that have expertise in this field have said. I hope Senators on both sides of the aisle will support the amendments I and others have offered. The Senate needs to do better than to produce a bill with minimal effects on the security of Americans and significant downside for their privacy and their liberty. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, this afternoon we begin the discussion of cyber security legislation. I think it is important to say at the outset that I think everybody who hears the notion that the Senate is talking about cyber security would say: Boy, you have to be for that. We all read about cyber hacks regularly, so you ask: Why not be for what they are talking about in the Senate? I begin by way of saying that the fact is not every bill with cyber security in the title is necessarily a good idea. I believe this bill will do little to make Americans safer but will potentially reduce the personal privacy of millions of Americans in a very substantial way. In the beginning, I think it is particularly telling who opposes this legislation at this time. The Business Software Alliance has said they cannot support this bill. They have members such as Apple, IBM, and Microsoft, and they are saying that at this time they cannot be for this bill. The Computer and Communications Industry Association has members such as Google, Facebook, and Amazon. They have said they cannot support the legislation at this time. America's librarians cannot support it at this time. Twitter cannot support it at this time. Wikimedia Foundation and Yelp can't support it at this time. The groups I am talking about are ones with members who have companies with millions and millions of customers, and they are saying they can't support this bill at this time. I think I know why these companies that didn't have a problem with previous kinds of versions of this legislation are saying they don't support it. These companies are hearing from their customers and they are worried their customers are saying: This doesn't look like it is going to protect our privacy. Of course, we want to be safe. We also want to have our liberty. Ben Franklin famously said anyone who gives up their liberty to have security really doesn't deserve either--so we know what Americans want. I would submit the reason these companies are coming out in opposition to this legislation is they don't want their customers to lose confidence in their products. They are looking at this legislation, and they are saying the privacy protections are woefully inadequate and their customers are going to lose confidence in their products. I appreciate that the managers are trying to make the bill better. It is quite clear to me, having listened to two colleagues--whom I respect very much--that they are very much aware that their bill has attracted widespread opposition. The comment was made that Apple, Google, everyone should be for this. I would say again--respectfully to my colleagues, the authors, with whom I have served since we all came to the committee together--even with the managers' amendment, the core privacy issues are not being dealt with. I would just read now from a few of the comments--maybe I am missing something. Maybe I heard a list of all the privacy issues that had been addressed. I haven't seen any privacy groups the Democrats or Republicans look to saying they support the privacy protections in the bill, but let me give you an example of a few who surely don't. This is what Yelp says: ``Congress is trying to pass a `cyber security' bill that threatens your privacy.'' This is what the American Library Association is saying. I will admit, Mr. President, I am a little bit tilted toward librarians because my late mother was a librarian. We all appreciate the librarians we grew up with. The librarians say that this bill ``de facto grants broad new mass data collection powers to many federal, as well as state and even local government agencies.'' Salesforce, a major player in the digital space located in California, says: At Salesforce, trust is our number one value and nothing is more important to our company than the privacy of our customers' data. . . . Salesforce does not support CISA and has never supported CISA. They have a hashtag. Follow #StopCISA for updates. This is the group that represents the Computer and Communications Industry Association--this is Google, Amazon, and Microsoft, the biggest major tech companies. Again, these are companies with millions of customers, and the companies are worried that this bill lacks privacy protections and their customers are going to lose confidence in some of what may be done under this. They say they support the goals, of course--which we all do--of dealing with real threats and sharing information. They state: ``But such a system should not come at the expense of users' privacy, need not be used for purposes unrelated to cyber security, and must not enable activities that might actively destabilize the infrastructure the bill aims to protect.'' Mr. President, we heard my colleague, the chair of the committee, a member of the Committee on Finance whom I have worked with often, say that the most important feature of the legislation is that it is voluntary. The fact is that it is voluntary for companies. It will be mandatory for their customers. And the fact is that companies can participate without the knowledge and consent of their customers, and they are immune from customer oversight and lawsuits if they do so. I am all for companies sharing information about malware and foreign hackers with the government, but there ought to be a strong requirement to filter out unrelated personal information about customers. I want to emphasize this because this is probably my strongest point of disagreement with my friends who are the sponsors. There is not in this bill a strong requirement to filter out unrelated personal information about these millions of customers who are going to be affected. This bill would allow companies to hand over a large amount of private and personal information about millions of their customers with only a cursory review. In my judgment, information about those who have been victims of hacks should not be treated in essentially the same way as information about the hackers. Without a strong requirement to filter out unrelated personal information, that is unfortunately what this bill does. At the outset of this discussion, we were told this bill would have substantial security benefits. I heard for days, for example, that this bill would have prevented the OPM attack, that it would have stopped the serious attack on government personnel records. After technologists reviewed that particular argument, that claim has essentially been withdrawn. There is a saying now in the cyber security field: If you can't protect it, don't collect it. If more personal consumer information flows to the government without strong protections, my view is it is going to end up being a prime target for hackers. Sharing information about cyber security threats is clearly a worthy goal, and I would like to find ways to encourage more of that responsibly. Yet if you share more information without strong privacy protections, millions of Americans will say: That is not a cyber security bill; it is a surveillance bill. My hope is that, working in a bipartisan way, by the time we have completed this legislation on the floor, that will not be the case. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, since we are still on the sanctuaries bill, before we turn to the cyber legislation, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to address the Senate after Chairman Burr has completed his remarks and after Ranking Member Feinstein has completed her remarks.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I certainly support most of the amendments that were just described. However, I am especially troubled about amendment No. 2626, which would significantly expand a badly outdated Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. I have sought to modernize the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, and I believe that amendment No. 2626 would take that law--the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act--in the wrong direction. I would object to any unanimous consent request that includes that amendment. Therefore, I object to this request.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I want to thank my colleague, Senator Merkley, a son of Douglas County, and reflect for a few minutes on the horrendous events of the last week. My colleague has eloquently talked about this, and I am grateful for that. Senator Merkley and I will be returning home tomorrow, but I want to talk a little bit about some of what was inspiring last Friday. My colleague and I and our colleague from the House, Congressman DeFazio, went to Mercy Medical Center, and we saw all of the staff. My own sense is that there is no way you can truly prepare for something like this. You can go through as many training programs, have as many drills, have as many handbooks as anybody can invent, but you are never truly prepared for it. When Senator Merkley and I and a colleague from the other body, Congressman DeFazio, walked into that mayhem, there were probably 150 staff there, and I said: This is the face of Douglas County. These are the people--the doctors and the nurses and the pharmacists and the volunteers--who were there in a time of extraordinary stress giving those individuals the very best of care and that little extra touch of Douglas County caring that my colleague knows much more about than anyone else here in the Senate. I so appreciated what we saw at Mercy Medical Center because it told me that even at a time of such pain and after such carnage, we know Douglas County is going to come back. Roseburg is going to come back. The reason we know that is because of what we saw there at Mercy Medical Center--all of those committed, wonderful advocates who, against all odds, came through. There is one other part of Douglas County I want to reflect on because it says so much about the community. My colleague and I have townhall meetings around the State. We have both been in Douglas County. I was at a townhall meeting at UCC just a couple of months ago. As I was driving in, all of the log trucks were parked out front because it is a community that cares a great deal about sensible natural resources policy. We had a spirited town meeting, as most of the town meetings in Douglas County are, because people have strong views, but on that day I saw much of what I saw at the Mercy Medical Center when my colleague and I visited--people who care about their friends and neighbors, who care about a whole host of issues, from the economy to charity to what the Congress is doing, that might actually be relevant to them. I bring this up by way of saying I am so grateful my colleague made the presentation he did so that we understand what a huge loss this has been, but I also wanted to touch on what I saw with my friend at Mercy Medical Center and what I saw at the Umpqua Community College townhall meeting just a couple of months ago. Because at a time of great loss, we can also be inspired by what we saw at that medical center and the friends and neighbors of goodwill coming together to deal with some of the biggest challenges the community and our country face. I look forward to going home with my colleague tomorrow, to once again talk about the challenges that are ahead after Roseburg. We talked a little bit about that on the steps, but I mostly want to say that what we saw last Friday in the middle of tragedy and great stress ought to send the message to all concerned that Douglas County is going to be back. Douglas County is a special place, and as horrendous as these losses were, those are people who embody the best of our State and the best of our country. I look forward to working with my colleague and, with his leadership, providing whatever solace we can in the short term and then moving on to tackle the community's bigger issues in the days ahead. I thank my colleague, and I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I want to take a few minutes today to discuss the enormous importance of America's most critical safety net program--Social Security. In particular, I want to talk about the Social Security Disability Insurance program and introduce a proposal to secure the financing of Social Security. Of all the strands woven together in America's safety net, disability insurance is one of the most successful at keeping vulnerable people in Oregon and across the country out of poverty. It is a vital lifeline for people who suffer from catastrophic illnesses or disabilities, including a million veterans. The time has come for Congress to take an expected but important step to preserve Social Security's strength into the future. The trust fund for the disability insurance portion of Social Security is set to be depleted in 2016. This doesn't mean the program will stop paying benefits but does mean that it will only have dedicated tax revenue to pay about 80 percent of benefits. This isn't a late-breaking crisis; this is something that Congress has anticipated for more than two decades. And it is a simple issue to resolve. For a defined-benefit system like Social Security, it is not unusual to adjust the dials of funding between the retirement program and the disability program as needed. That way, the entire program remains as strong as possible. Benefits go out in full and on time. Nobody in Oregon or elsewhere is stuck in limbo, worrying about suddenly being unable to make rent or pay the bills. Congress has adjusted resources within Social Security 11 times and has shifted funding both to and from the disability insurance program. The last time it did, in 1994, it set the disability insurance program on strong footing for about 20 years. That is the practical way to strengthen disability insurance for the future. I am introducing legislation today along with 27 colleagues that would do just that, and Ways and Means Ranking Member Levin is introducing a similar measure in the House of Representatives. This is a straightforward, commonsense proposal supported by a number of prominent advocates for Americans with disabilities, including the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, the Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities Social Security Task Force, Social Security Works, and the Strengthen Social Security Coalition. Despite that, there are some members of Congress who are ringing false alarm bells and insisting on changes to the program that may be harmful to workers and beneficiaries. They make the misguided case that disability insurance is plagued by fraud or that it is a big giveaway. That is not the case--as I will explain in a moment. The reason I am introducing this legislation now is the House of Representatives has adopted a rule that prevents a clean reallocation of funding between the retirement and disability programs. I want to make sure that harmful changes to these programs are not included in end-of-year or other must-pass legislation. In my view, there are opportunities to further strengthen Social Security, and I believe the Congress should be open to policies that would not harm workers and beneficiaries. However, it is important that Congress not take any action that would reduce protections for those who desire to attempt work, add more complexity in benefits or administration, or rig up another trust fund depletion scenario. There have been some ideas thrown around that don't pass those tests. As Congress debates the future of disability insurance, it is important to get the facts straight. First, the Social Security Administration makes stopping program fraud and abuse a top priority. Disability insurance payments are more than 99 percent accurate, due in no small part to the agency's robust efforts to combat waste, fraud, and abuse. For example, the agency uses a highly effective method of preventing improper payments called ``continuing disability reviews,'' which returns $9 in savings for every dollar invested. The agency has demonstrated that it can do this important work when we here in Congress provide it with sufficient resources. In addition, let me be clear: nobody is getting rich off of disability insurance. The benefits average just over $1,100 a month, which is slightly over the individual poverty level. If SSDI went away, half of the families receiving benefits would fall into poverty. And it is important to recognize that the qualifications for disability insurance are strict, which means only those who are so impaired they can't perform substantial work receive benefits. The program is not a giveaway. Workers earn coverage by paying into the program. Less than 40 percent of applications for disability insurance are approved, even after appeals. The people who qualify suffer from severe medical conditions that have derailed their lives and left them extremely vulnerable. In my view, it is deeply unfair to delay the simple changes that will keep the disability insurance program running for years to come. One year ago, the Finance Committee heard testimony from a woman named Stephanie Dempsey who suffered from debilitating chronic illnesses and received disability insurance benefits. Stephanie's long list of health problems began in her late twenties, when she was diagnosed with a hereditary heart disease. She had quadruple bypass surgery at age 30. Over the following years, she had 27 stents placed in her arteries over the course of several more operations. That enormous burden was compounded by Lupus, arthritis, and a seizure disorder. A mountain of prescription bottles was stacked on the witness table the day Stephanie came before the Finance Committee. As Stephanie told us, she wanted to work, but her illnesses made it impossible. Rather than sliding backward into poverty or having to rely entirely on others to stay afloat, disability insurance benefits helped cover the bills. I am sorry to say that Stephanie passed away in December. But there are vulnerable people across the country who rely on disability insurance in the same way Stephanie did. On the Social Security Administration's website is a page where many of these individuals have shared their stories. Let me tell you about three other individuals who rely on disability insurance: Charlotte, Christine, and Carrie. Charlotte was working three jobs and pursuing her degree in social work when she suffered two strokes in 2007. After the strokes, Charlotte now has trouble getting around and climbing steps. She gets help from her niece with day-to-day chores. She says disability insurance keeps her from becoming homeless and helps her pay her bills, afford her medications, and keep food on the table. Christine has a disorder of the nervous system that has left her in a wheelchair. Her disability insurance benefits give her independence. She said that without Social Security, she would be stuck in a nursing home, but instead, she is able to be a productive citizen. Carrie is a mother who suffers from multiple sclerosis, MS. She worked in the insurance industry and shrugged off the early symptoms of her MS. But the fatigue and forgetfulness grew, and she became unable to work. Carrie's Social Security benefits help her family pay for food, clothes, and school supplies. Mr. President, these individuals and millions more across the country have earned their benefits, and they are relying on Congress to keep both parts of Social Security running at full strength. I urge my colleagues to work on a bipartisan basis to ensure that benefits continue in full and as promised, to guarantee that millions of vulnerable Americans remain protected.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I want to take a few minutes today to discuss the enormous importance of America's most critical safety net program--Social Security. In particular, I want to talk about the Social Security Disability Insurance program and introduce a proposal to secure the financing of Social Security. Of all the strands woven together in America's safety net, disability insurance is one of the most successful at keeping vulnerable people in Oregon and across the country out of poverty. It is a vital lifeline for people who suffer from catastrophic illnesses or disabilities, including a million veterans. The time has come for Congress to take an expected but important step to preserve Social Security's strength into the future. The trust fund for the disability insurance portion of Social Security is set to be depleted in 2016. This doesn't mean the program will stop paying benefits but does mean that it will only have dedicated tax revenue to pay about 80 percent of benefits. This isn't a late-breaking crisis; this is something that Congress has anticipated for more than two decades. And it is a simple issue to resolve. For a defined-benefit system like Social Security, it is not unusual to adjust the dials of funding between the retirement program and the disability program as needed. That way, the entire program remains as strong as possible. Benefits go out in full and on time. Nobody in Oregon or elsewhere is stuck in limbo, worrying about suddenly being unable to make rent or pay the bills. Congress has adjusted resources within Social Security 11 times and has shifted funding both to and from the disability insurance program. The last time it did, in 1994, it set the disability insurance program on strong footing for about 20 years. That is the practical way to strengthen disability insurance for the future. I am introducing legislation today along with 27 colleagues that would do just that, and Ways and Means Ranking Member Levin is introducing a similar measure in the House of Representatives. This is a straightforward, commonsense proposal supported by a number of prominent advocates for Americans with disabilities, including the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, the Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities Social Security Task Force, Social Security Works, and the Strengthen Social Security Coalition. Despite that, there are some members of Congress who are ringing false alarm bells and insisting on changes to the program that may be harmful to workers and beneficiaries. They make the misguided case that disability insurance is plagued by fraud or that it is a big giveaway. That is not the case--as I will explain in a moment. The reason I am introducing this legislation now is the House of Representatives has adopted a rule that prevents a clean reallocation of funding between the retirement and disability programs. I want to make sure that harmful changes to these programs are not included in end-of-year or other must-pass legislation. In my view, there are opportunities to further strengthen Social Security, and I believe the Congress should be open to policies that would not harm workers and beneficiaries. However, it is important that Congress not take any action that would reduce protections for those who desire to attempt work, add more complexity in benefits or administration, or rig up another trust fund depletion scenario. There have been some ideas thrown around that don't pass those tests. As Congress debates the future of disability insurance, it is important to get the facts straight. First, the Social Security Administration makes stopping program fraud and abuse a top priority. Disability insurance payments are more than 99 percent accurate, due in no small part to the agency's robust efforts to combat waste, fraud, and abuse. For example, the agency uses a highly effective method of preventing improper payments called ``continuing disability reviews,'' which returns $9 in savings for every dollar invested. The agency has demonstrated that it can do this important work when we here in Congress provide it with sufficient resources. In addition, let me be clear: nobody is getting rich off of disability insurance. The benefits average just over $1,100 a month, which is slightly over the individual poverty level. If SSDI went away, half of the families receiving benefits would fall into poverty. And it is important to recognize that the qualifications for disability insurance are strict, which means only those who are so impaired they can't perform substantial work receive benefits. The program is not a giveaway. Workers earn coverage by paying into the program. Less than 40 percent of applications for disability insurance are approved, even after appeals. The people who qualify suffer from severe medical conditions that have derailed their lives and left them extremely vulnerable. In my view, it is deeply unfair to delay the simple changes that will keep the disability insurance program running for years to come. One year ago, the Finance Committee heard testimony from a woman named Stephanie Dempsey who suffered from debilitating chronic illnesses and received disability insurance benefits. Stephanie's long list of health problems began in her late twenties, when she was diagnosed with a hereditary heart disease. She had quadruple bypass surgery at age 30. Over the following years, she had 27 stents placed in her arteries over the course of several more operations. That enormous burden was compounded by Lupus, arthritis, and a seizure disorder. A mountain of prescription bottles was stacked on the witness table the day Stephanie came before the Finance Committee. As Stephanie told us, she wanted to work, but her illnesses made it impossible. Rather than sliding backward into poverty or having to rely entirely on others to stay afloat, disability insurance benefits helped cover the bills. I am sorry to say that Stephanie passed away in December. But there are vulnerable people across the country who rely on disability insurance in the same way Stephanie did. On the Social Security Administration's website is a page where many of these individuals have shared their stories. Let me tell you about three other individuals who rely on disability insurance: Charlotte, Christine, and Carrie. Charlotte was working three jobs and pursuing her degree in social work when she suffered two strokes in 2007. After the strokes, Charlotte now has trouble getting around and climbing steps. She gets help from her niece with day-to-day chores. She says disability insurance keeps her from becoming homeless and helps her pay her bills, afford her medications, and keep food on the table. Christine has a disorder of the nervous system that has left her in a wheelchair. Her disability insurance benefits give her independence. She said that without Social Security, she would be stuck in a nursing home, but instead, she is able to be a productive citizen. Carrie is a mother who suffers from multiple sclerosis, MS. She worked in the insurance industry and shrugged off the early symptoms of her MS. But the fatigue and forgetfulness grew, and she became unable to work. Carrie's Social Security benefits help her family pay for food, clothes, and school supplies. Mr. President, these individuals and millions more across the country have earned their benefits, and they are relying on Congress to keep both parts of Social Security running at full strength. I urge my colleagues to work on a bipartisan basis to ensure that benefits continue in full and as promised, to guarantee that millions of vulnerable Americans remain protected.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Mt. Hood Cooper Spur Land Exchange Clarification Act. This bill is a necessary step to ensuring that the Cooper Spur land exchange on Mt. Hood proceeds as Congress originally intended when it passed as a part of the Omnibus Public Lands Bill in 2009. I am pleased to introduce this bill with my colleague from Oregon, Senator Jeff Merkley. The Mt. Hood Cooper Spur land exchange was included in the Mt. Hood Wilderness designation that passed 6 years ago as part of the Omnibus Public Lands Act of 2009. The bill, which has now been law for over 6 years, directed several land exchanges including the Cooper Spur land exchange. The Cooper Spur land exchange required the Forest Service to transfer approximately 120 acres of Federal land to Mt. Hood Meadows in exchange for approximately 770 acres of private land, with the goal of keeping development of Mt. Hood concentrated around the current development at Government Camp and ensuring the protection of the North side of the mountain. The swap was to be completed in 16 months. It is now 77 months later and the exchange has not moved forward. The delays have angered the public, endangered the environment, and have now spurred a lawsuit against the Forest Service. The Mt. Hood Cooper Spur Land Exchange Clarification Act would make technical corrections to the Original Cooper Spur land exchange provisions in the Omnibus Public Lands Act to jumpstart the land exchange and keep the process moving forward so the exchange can finally be completed, as originally intended. I introduced the original Mt. Hood Wilderness proposal in 2004 and again in 2006 and 2007 with my then-colleague Senator Gordon Smith of Oregon. As the Wilderness proposal and associated land exchanges took shape, more than 1,700 constituents provided input on the proposal. It was supported by members of the Oregon congressional delegation at the time, then-Governor Kulongoski, the Bush administration, and over 100 community groups. The Mt. Hood Cooper Spur Land Exchange Clarification Act is supported by Mt. Hood Meadows, Friends of Hood River Valley, Clackamas County, and Hood River County. The Cooper Spur land exchange was an important part of the Mt. Hood Wilderness designation to ensure the protection of the undeveloped North side of the mountain. In turn, the Mt. Hood Cooper Spur Land Exchange Clarification Act is needed in order to ensure that the land exchange, a community-driven solution to the development challenges on Mt. Hood, is finally completed. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Mt. Hood Cooper Spur Land Exchange Clarification Act. This bill is a necessary step to ensuring that the Cooper Spur land exchange on Mt. Hood proceeds as Congress originally intended when it passed as a part of the Omnibus Public Lands Bill in 2009. I am pleased to introduce this bill with my colleague from Oregon, Senator Jeff Merkley. The Mt. Hood Cooper Spur land exchange was included in the Mt. Hood Wilderness designation that passed 6 years ago as part of the Omnibus Public Lands Act of 2009. The bill, which has now been law for over 6 years, directed several land exchanges including the Cooper Spur land exchange. The Cooper Spur land exchange required the Forest Service to transfer approximately 120 acres of Federal land to Mt. Hood Meadows in exchange for approximately 770 acres of private land, with the goal of keeping development of Mt. Hood concentrated around the current development at Government Camp and ensuring the protection of the North side of the mountain. The swap was to be completed in 16 months. It is now 77 months later and the exchange has not moved forward. The delays have angered the public, endangered the environment, and have now spurred a lawsuit against the Forest Service. The Mt. Hood Cooper Spur Land Exchange Clarification Act would make technical corrections to the Original Cooper Spur land exchange provisions in the Omnibus Public Lands Act to jumpstart the land exchange and keep the process moving forward so the exchange can finally be completed, as originally intended. I introduced the original Mt. Hood Wilderness proposal in 2004 and again in 2006 and 2007 with my then-colleague Senator Gordon Smith of Oregon. As the Wilderness proposal and associated land exchanges took shape, more than 1,700 constituents provided input on the proposal. It was supported by members of the Oregon congressional delegation at the time, then-Governor Kulongoski, the Bush administration, and over 100 community groups. The Mt. Hood Cooper Spur Land Exchange Clarification Act is supported by Mt. Hood Meadows, Friends of Hood River Valley, Clackamas County, and Hood River County. The Cooper Spur land exchange was an important part of the Mt. Hood Wilderness designation to ensure the protection of the undeveloped North side of the mountain. In turn, the Mt. Hood Cooper Spur Land Exchange Clarification Act is needed in order to ensure that the land exchange, a community-driven solution to the development challenges on Mt. Hood, is finally completed. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, this year is the 200th anniversary of one of the wisest decisions Congress ever made. In 1815, Congress acquired the entirety of Thomas Jefferson's personal library to replace Congress's library, which was burnt by the British Army the previous year. I would like to take a few moments to recognize this anniversary and to focus on the good work one small Library of Congress program does today. Though the Library of Congress was established in 1800, for the first 15 years of its existence it was mainly a law library. It was not until the acquisition of Jefferson's personal library that the Library became the broad repository of knowledge that it is today. Some Members of Congress opposed the idea of buying Jefferson's entire library, which included books in many languages, and on a variety of topics, including science, math, philosophy, and religion. However, Thomas Jefferson famously replied, ``I do not know that it contains any branch of science which Congress would wish to exclude from their collection; there is, in fact, no subject to which a Member of Congress may not have occasion to refer.'' Fortunately, this view won the day, and today the Library contains an unparalleled number of items from every branch of knowledge, making it the largest library in the world. Forever growing, the Library of Congress receives 20,000 new items every day. However, only about half are kept for the Library's permanent collection. It is the program designed to bridge that divide which has grown to touch so many Oregonians, as well as regular folks around the country. The Library of Congress's Surplus Books Program takes the books not needed for the Library's collections and provides them to schools, libraries, and nonprofit institutions around the country. Each week, staff from my office are able to select books, box them up, and send them to Oregon. One recipient in Oregon has been the new library in Halsey, OR. Halsey is a small town, but the community has come together to build a fantastic new library. I have been able to send them several hundred new books to help them grow and diversify their collection. I expect to be able to send them hundreds more, thanks to the Library of Congress's Surplus Books Program. I would be remiss if I failed to recognize Joseph Maher, acquisitions specialist and librarian for the Surplus Books Program. Mr. Maher almost singlehandedly runs the program and often goes above and beyond to identify books for particular organizations. Mr. Maher works to find a good home for each of the books, while simultaneously balancing the needs of the many congressional offices, schools, universities, and Federal agencies that select books from the program. He works tirelessly knowing that the books they send around the country are going to make a positive impact on many lives. Reading sparks creativity, learning, passion, and imagination, and the Library of Congress continues to help ignite it. I could not be more pleased to see communities in Oregon benefitting from this program.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I agree with the Senator from Wyoming that we need to find a solution to this problem and I have introduced legislation with Senator Crapo that currently sits in the Budget Committee. Oregon is on fire and the Forest Service tells me that with current fire seasons getting longer and current budgetary constraints, the days of spending over 50 percent of their budget on suppressing fires is here to stay. The time for talking is coming to an end and the time to negotiate a fix to this very serious problem is at hand. I would like to work under the leadership of my friend, the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, over the summer, on an answer to this chronic problem.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I want to thank the distinguished chairman from Utah. As Members will see from the views I am going to articulate, we have some strong differences about how the facts ought to be interpreted, but we worked very closely together to ensure that there would be one bipartisan compilation of the underlying facts. The two of us certainly agree that there is evidence of vast bureaucratic bumbling at the IRS. I will also say that a review of 1.5 million pages of emails and documents and interviews with more than 30 IRS officials does not point to a single shred of political interference. I think as colleagues look at particularly the majority views and the minority views--set them aside for a moment; the fact is, the facts of the report show that no order--no order was ever given to target political groups. I am very pleased that we now have a bipartisan report that was conducted here in the Congress. That is why the bipartisan findings are especially important. As I have stated, the findings contain absolutely no evidence to support the narrative that has been advanced by other committees and some in the media that tea party groups were targeted by the IRS because of their political views. My own view is that groups on the progressive side and groups on the conservative side--both of them were handled in a fashion that was unacceptable. Both were handled badly. So as we kind of get into these issues--as I say, I think it was a very thorough and professional effort that was conducted to get at the facts. I want to kind of set the stage with some background. Under our Federal tax laws, people can establish various types of tax-exempt groups. There are different rules for each type. Under Section 501(c)(4), an organization can be established as a social welfare organization. One of the rules for these social welfare organizations is they have to be operated exclusively for social welfare purposes. That has been interpreted since 1959 to mean, among other things, that the organization can engage in some political campaign activity, but that cannot be its primary activity. There is no precise meaning of ``primary'' for this purpose, and exactly what constitutes ``political campaign activity'' is similarly unclear. Another type of tax-exempt organization is established under section 527. A 527 organization can engage in an unlimited amount of political campaign activity, but there is an important distinction because a 527 organization has to disclose the identity of its donors. Finally, the type of tax-exempt entity Americans are most familiar with--501(c)(3)s are not allowed to engage in any political campaign activity. So now, with that as some legal background, let's unpack the events we looked at. In February of 2010, the IRS Exempt Organizations Determinations Office, located in Cincinnati, began processing the first application for 501(c)(4) status from a tea party group. Before long, the office was--as one IRS employee was quoted as saying, they were inundated with applications from tea party groups, other conservative groups, and some progressive-leaning organizations. The additional Republican views estimate that a total of 547 applications were the focus of our investigation; 65 percent were from tea party or conservative groups; 19 percent were from progressive organizations. To the IRS employees in the tax-exempt organizations division, these applications raised questions about whether the organizations were planning to engage in more political campaign activity than the 501(c)(4) law allowed. We also tried to assess the cause of the surge in applications, and I think it would be fair to say no one really knows what was behind that. It may have been related to the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision in January of 2010 which knocked down some of the key limits on political campaign spending. It may have been related to the rise in citizen activism embodied in the tea party movement, the Occupy movement. In any event, there was a surge in applications. Now let's fast forward to May of 2013. At the conclusion of her remarks at an American Bar Association conference, the Director of the IRS tax-exempt organizations division, Lois Lerner, disclosed that IRS employees had selected 501(c)(4) applications by groups with terms like ``tea party'' and ``patriot'' in their name for further reviews. She stated that the IRS employees had done so simply because the applications had those names in the title. Lerner described this process of selecting cases for review because of a particular name as ``wrong,'' ``insensitive,'' ``inappropriate.'' A few days later, the Treasury Inspector General For Tax Administration, who is known as TIGTA, released a report finding that the IRS ``used inappropriate criteria that identified for rebuke Tea Party and other organizations applying for tax-exempt status based on their names or policy positions instead of indications of potential political campaign intervention.'' At the time of these disclosures from the IRS and the inspector general, there was a very serious concern that the singling out of conservative groups by name may have been a consequence of political bias or motivation on the part of IRS employees, possibly at the direction of political appointees at the IRS, the Treasury Department, or the White House. Although the inspector general report found no evidence of political bias or targeting by the IRS, this was obviously a serious matter. The then-chairman of the Finance Committee, Chairman Baucus, and the then-ranking member of the committee, now our chairman, Senator Hatch, began an in-depth, bipartisan investigation to assess the facts. The investigation continued after I became chairman of the committee, and it has gone forward under Chairman Hatch this year. So our bipartisan inquiry has been underway for more than 2 years. In the course of the investigation, the bipartisan committee staff has reviewed more than 1.5 million pages of documents and interviewed 32 witnesses. At the committee's request, the inspector general has undertaken several related but separate investigations. The results of the investigation are in the report the Finance Committee submitted to the Senate today. That consists of a bipartisan report prepared by the committee staff and represents the views of Chairman Hatch and myself; additional views of Chairman Hatch's prepared by the majority staff, which I will refer to as the additional Republican views; and my own additional views, prepared by the minority staff, which I will refer to as the additional Democratic views. In total, the principal parts of the report are 318 pages long, plus a 90-page chronology of events and another 5,000 or so pages of attached exhibits. I certainly hope the report is going to clear away some of the smoke and cut through some of the rhetoric to ensure that all sides can see what really happened. The report also makes a series of recommendations, including bipartisan recommendations, about how to initiate reforms going forward. I would like to now describe the main conclusions that I draw from the report. First and foremost, the IRS's handling of this matter was an unmitigated bureaucratic disaster. There were some extenuating circumstances. The Citizens United decision had opened the floodgates to millions of dollars flowing into political activities, with 501(c)(4) organizations seeming to be one of the favored vehicles. As a result, the IRS was facing a dramatic increase in the number and complexity of applications for 501(c)(4) status. At the same time, the IRS was working with vague regulatory standards that have not been updated since 1959. So the staff at the IRS exempt organizations division has one tough job. They were racing against a late-model Mustang in a 1959 jalopy. Even taking that into account, the IRS handled the situation badly. Essentially, the IRS froze. The bipartisan report shows that for more than 2 years, officials in the tax-exempt organizations division in both Cincinnati and Washington failed to develop a good system for processing 501(c)(4) applications that seemed to present issues about the group's potential involvement in political campaign activity. During that time, the IRS staff and managers tried a variety of different approaches. They asked one of their experts on tax-exempt organization law to focus on two test cases--in effect, models. That took more than 8 months, and nothing really came of it. Then they set up task forces, and they tried what has come to be known as the infamous BOLO or ``be on the lookout'' list. They tried to get more information from applicants by asking a long list of detailed questions. This approach actually backfired because of the volume and the inappropriate nature of the questions. The bumbling and the bureaucratic paralysis just went on and on. By my count, there were seven different efforts over more than 2 years to figure out how to handle these applications, and the first six were for naught. By December 2011, a total of 290 applications for 501(c)(4) status had been set aside for further review. Two of these applications have been successfully resolved, not 202. It wasn't until the late spring of 2012--more than 26 months after the first tea party application had arrived in Cincinnati--that the IRS finally started to get its act together, setting up a triage group that was able to work through the backlog of applications more quickly. This process could and should have been handled better. Senior IRS leadership should have recognized or been made aware of the problem and should have stepped in much earlier to develop a system that provided fair and expeditious processing of these applications. In light of all of this, the bipartisan report concludes that ``between 2010 and 2013, the IRS failed to fulfill its obligation to administer the tax law with integrity and fairness to all.'' At a time of rising political activity and under increased political scrutiny and pressure after the Citizens United decision: Senior IRS executives, including Lerner, failed to properly manage political advocacy cases with the sensitivity and promptness that the applicants deserve. Other employees in the IRS failed to handle the cases with a proper level of urgency, which was symptomatic of the overall culture within the IRS where customer service was not prioritized. These are all findings of the bipartisan report. Further, and I wish to make this clear, most of the applications caught up in this mismanagement were tea party or other conservative groups, including in some cases small and relatively unsophisticated groups who didn't have the resources to engage in a protracted review with the IRS. And I think we ought to make no mistake about it--these groups deserve much better treatment from their government. If there is any good news in all of this, the Democratic view notes that there have been some positive steps. Four key employees in the IRS who failed to manage properly have been removed from their positions, the backlog of applications has largely been eliminated, and all but 10 of the applications have now been resolved. The bipartisan report recommends several further steps that should be taken. It makes 16 recommendations, including such reforms promulgating objective criteria to trigger special review, prohibiting requests for donor lists, creating a position in the taxpayer advocate dedicated to assisting applicants for tax-exempt status, and improving the system for tracking resolution of pending applications, with a target of resolving applications within 270 days. Now let me turn to this question of political influence. Beyond the indisputable gross management, another important focus of our investigation was to deal with these speculative charges and issues with respect to political influence. When the original inspector general report was issued in 2013, there was a concern that it looked like most of the groups that were caught up in all of this were conservative-leaning groups, such as those with ``tea party'' in their names. In light of this, there was concern that we might be looking at something that was much worse than bureaucratic bungling. The concern was that there might have been an attempt to exert inappropriate political influence over the process of reviewing applications for tax- exempt status by disfavoring certain applications because of their perceived political views. In my view, that would constitute a grave and completely legitimate concern not just for Republicans, not just for conservatives, but for every American. Among the fundamental principles underpinning our system of government are equal treatment for all and an inviolate right to freedom of speech and expression. Both of these principles are especially important when it comes to the IRS, which has great power that must be exercised in an evenhanded fashion. Of perhaps equal importance to an evenhanded exercise of its authority, it is incumbent on the IRS to take great care to ensure against any perception that it is acting because of bias, political or otherwise. In the committee's investigation--which, as Chairman Hatch has noted, went for more than 2 years--the bipartisan staff carefully reviewed the evidence, and in contrast to the bipartisan analysis and recommendations I have just described, in this instance, the Democratic and Republican views have come to different conclusions. The additional Democratic views conclude that there is absolutely no evidence that there was an attempt to exert political influence. The additional Republican views--in contrast, in the 120 pages--are trying to make the case that there somehow, someway, must have been political interference involved but without identifying any direct evidence, documentary or otherwise, to support the case. I wish to explain first by laying out the basic facts and then by responding to the main points in the additional Republican view. First, on the facts, according to the report, the staff found no evidence of involvement by the White House or by Treasury Department political officials. None. The staff found no evidence that any political appointee in the Obama administration was involved in the review of applications or in the establishment of standards for their review. None. As a side note, during most of the relevant period, the IRS Commissioner was Mr. Douglas Shulman, who was appointed by President Bush, and the principal official responsible for the management of the relevant IRS activities, Lois Lerner, was a career civil servant who was named to her position as Director of the tax-exempt organizations division by IRS Commissioner Mark Everson, who also was appointed by President Bush. In addition to finding no emails, no memos, and no other documents indicating there was an attempt to exert political influence, the report indicates that the staff asked every IRS employee who was directly involved in the review of the applications whether there had been any attempt to exert political influence over the handling of applications or whether they saw anyone else processing applications in a politically biased way. The staff asked 25 people. Every single one of them said there was no political bias. In addition, the inspector general audit that spurred the investigation also found no evidence of targeting or political bias. Let me repeat that because there have obviously been some misconceptions. The 2013 inspector general audit found no evidence of political bias in 501(c)(4) processing. This is discussed further in the committee's report, including an email from the deputy inspector general at the office stating: ``There was no indication that pulling these applications was politically motivated.'' There is an email from the inspector general chief counsel stating that the tea party was not targeted. The inspector general himself testified before our committee that no political motivation was found, and his office further stated that no relevant communications were found coming from the White House or Treasury. Further, although more conservative-leaning than progressive-leaning groups were affected, several progressive organizations were subject to the same kind of gross mismanagement, long delays, and inappropriate information requests that were experienced by the conservative organizations. The bipartisan report notes that terms such as ``progressive'' and ``ACORN,'' as well as terms intended to capture the various Occupy Wall Street groups, were included with ``tea party'' and ``9/12'' on the IRS BOLO list. Again, ``progressive'' appeared on the same BOLO list as ``tea party'' from day one. The report also shows that progressive groups were subject to mismanagement, delays, and intrusive questions from the IRS. I also would like to respond to several other particulars to the additional Republican views. Notwithstanding the plain fact that there is no evidence of any attempt to exert political influence over the process, the additional Republican views strive over the course of 120 pages to make the case that somehow, someway, somewhere, there was something sinister going on. This is done through a combination of innuendo, speculation, and unjustified inference. The additional Republican views make much of the fact that the head of the tax-exempt organizations division and the principal person responsible for the management issues involved, Lois Lerner, appears to have been a Democrat with liberal views about some issues. Much is also made of the fact that the President and some congressional Democrats wanted to impose tighter restrictions on campaign spending. Put these two facts together--say, Republicans--and it becomes clear in their view that the fix was in. However, the actual evidence to support this theory is nonexistent. For example, the Republican views quote an email from Ms. Lerner's husband in which on election day he told her he had written in the names of Socialist Labor candidates on his ballot. They quote an email from Ms. Lerner--an email she wrote--celebrating Maryland's approval of same-sex marriage. And they note what they apparently consider to be particularly suspicious: that in the 1.5 million pages of documents, the Republican staff found no instance in which Ms. Lerner, members of her family, or her friends ``expressed positive sentiments about the Republican Party, a specific Republican candidate, or the Tea Party.'' So what we have is that Ms. Lerner's husband voted for Socialists, she is a Democrat, she supports same-sex marriage, and she apparently doesn't have a lot of Republican supporters among her family. You just have to ask yourself, what is this supposed to prove? There is no evidence that any of these views were brought to the actual review of the application process, and that, to me, is what is paramount. Granted, the Republican views also quote various other emails in which Ms. Lerner expresses support for President Obama or is critical-- sometimes harshly so--of the Republican Party and specific Republican officials. To my mind, this is pretty much irrelevant chitchat. It is gossip. It is coffee-shop talk, locker-room talk. As the Democratic views puts it, ``There is no evidence that Lois Lerner allowed her political belief to affect how she carried out her duties as a manager of the Exempt Organizations office.'' The Republican views also highlight Ms. Lerner's views about the Supreme Court Citizens United decision. It is pretty obvious she didn't like it. She thought it threatened to unleash a flood of unregulated money in the Federal campaign. The Republican views even suggests that it was somehow nefarious that Ms. Lerner was closely following the Citizens United decision. All of this tells us nothing. She was the head of the IRS division responsible for applying the law regarding the appropriate level of political campaign activity undertaken by 501(c)(4) organizations. It would be odd, in my view, if she weren't closely following Citizens United. It was an important decision with major implications for political campaign spending. It is not surprising to me that she didn't like the decision. Eighty percent of Americans felt the same way. I am one of them. The Republicans also were exercised that President Obama, various congressional Democrats, and the Democratic Party in general opposed the Citizens United decision and supported tighter limits on campaign spending. No question that is true. But the Republican views make a remarkable leap. They say: Overall, it is apparent that the need for an explicit Presidential directive to target the Tea Party and conservative organizations was rendered unnecessary by the White House's frequent public statements condemning political spending. Government agencies were acutely aware of the President's wishes and responded accordingly. So said the majority in their views. Now, just think about that. Just kind of put your arms around that. The President wanted to limit campaign spending. So the Republicans on the committee would have us conclude that various relatively low-level career government officials, without any direct intervention whatsoever from the White House, from the Treasury Department or from anybody else in a position of political authority, just sprang into action and engaged in a conspiracy of some sort to harass conservative groups. I guess it was almost conspiracy by osmosis. I find these extraordinary leaps to just defy logic. Federal civil servants are allowed to have a political opinion. The President of the United States and Members of Congress are allowed to express their views about the campaign finance system. Certainly some of Ms. Lerner's personal emails were in poor taste, and it may have been bad judgment for someone in her position to be sending emails to her friends on her office computer expressing political opinions, but the only pertinent question here--the only pertinent question--is whether the political views of Ms. Lerner or other officials influenced the evenhanded administration of the law. Although the majority points to numerous embarrassing emails from Ms. Lerner, they cannot point to even a single one where she directed or encouraged employees to exercise political bias. The majority views also make another argument. They assert that significantly more conservative-leaning groups than progressive-leaning groups were affected by the dysfunction at the IRS and that this, in and of itself, proves there was a bias against conservatives. This is a more serious argument, but when you unpack this one, it, too, falls short. As I have said before, it appears from the report that most of the groups affected were conservative, but progressive groups were affected too. The bipartisan report indicates that progressive was on the BOLO list, along with ACORN and other terms such as ``Occupy'' that were considered to indicate progressive or Democratic-leaning political engagement. The report also shows the IRS conducted workshops directing employees to look for terms such as ``progressive'' and ``Emerge'' as well as ``tea party.'' Again, these groups suffered from the same sort of delays and intrusive questions that tea party and other conservative groups suffered from. Nonetheless, Republicans on the committee insist the fact that more conservative than progressive groups were caught up in the IRS dysfunction necessarily means there was bias. However, this inference can be only drawn if there were equal volumes of applications coming into the IRS from conservative and progressive groups. There is just no evidence this was the case. Moreover, there is good reason to believe that in the wake of Citizens United, the increasing volume of applications--particularly applications that raised serious issues about involvement in political campaign activity--came primarily from conservative- leaning groups. Independent watchdogs have determined that 80 percent of political campaign spending by 501(c)(4)s was supported by conservatives, and the IRS staff said they were inundated with tea party applications. If that is the case, it would be unsurprising that most of the delays and other problems included conservative groups. They were mostly the ones who were applying. Again, I am not trying in any way to justify the poor treatment received by conservative groups, but the report found no evidence that the typical conservative application was any more likely to be mistreated than the typical progressive application, and without such evidence it is inappropriate to infer there was bias. A third argument the Republican views assert, which also falls short, is that there was a double standard: on one hand the treatment of the conservative groups caught up in the 501(c)(4) dysfunction and on the other hand the treatment of some nonprofit groups supported by Democratic Senators. The Republican views cite three cases in which Democratic Senators asked that the review of applications for tax- exempt status be expedited and where that apparently was done. They contrast the relatively quick resolution of these cases to the delays experienced by tea party and other conservative applicants for 501(c)(4) status. On the face of it, the facts the three cases relied on do not support the Republican inference there was a double standard. In the first place, according to the information in the report, the three groups supported by Democratic Senators had applied for 501(c)(3) status, under which they can engage in no political activity. Further, in two of the three cases there is nothing in the report indicating the cases were particularly difficult or controversial. In the Democratic views, it is noted the third case was a request for the expeditious consideration of an application for tax-exempt status by the One Boston Foundation in order to facilitate fundraising and assistance to those who were the victims of the Boston Marathon terrorist attacks in April of 2013. In that case, it appears from public reporting there was an unusual legal issue and that in part at the request of various public officials, the IRS did in fact cut through some redtape and resolve the issue so this organization could get up and running quickly. As far as I know, there are no allegations that the One Boston Foundation was anything remotely like a political organization, and I am not aware of any partisan or other controversy surrounding it. I was surprised by the Republican views that apparently thought it was inappropriate or unfair for public officials to encourage the IRS to help get the organization up and running or that the IRS did anything wrong by handling this case well. To put it more pointedly, I was surprised this was considered to be in any way relevant to our investigation. As the bipartisan report makes clear, the IRS took far too long to review 501(c)(4) applications from tea party and other groups, and it subjected many of the groups to unnecessary delay and inappropriate questioning, but the fact that the IRS was able to handle a few very different cases reasonably well does not show a double standard. In effect, the Republican views compare apples and oranges. Before closing, I want to briefly address several other matters covered in our report. The first is the crash of Lois Lerner's hard drive in 2011 which resulted in the loss of some emails that may have been relevant to our inquiry. Senator Hatch and I learned about the hard drive crash in June 2014, just before we were originally planning to release the committee's report. The two of us immediately asked the inspector general to investigate to determine whether there was evidence of intentional wrongdoing and whether any of the lost emails could be recovered from other sources. The inspector general conducted a thorough investigation, which took more than 1 year. Here is what the inspector general found, as explained in the report: Although we do not know why her hard drive crashed, there is no evidence it was crashed intentionally. The inspector general was able to recover about 1,300 additional emails, and the inspector general found that some potentially relevant backup tapes had been unintentionally mishandled and then destroyed, contrary to the document retention policy the IRS put in place after our investigation began. These findings have led to a significant amount of criticism about the current IRS Commissioner, Mr. John Koskinen. Before closing, I want to make a couple of points in response to the criticism of Commissioner Koskinen. First, it is important to remember that the principal problems we have been talking about--in other words, Chairman Hatch and I have been talking about these issues here for probably close to an hour regarding the IRS handling of applications for section 501(c)(4) status--all occurred before Mr. Koskinen came on board as IRS Commissioner in December of 2013. In fact, during the entire period covered by the original 2013 inspector general investigation, the IRS Commissioner was Mr. Doug Shulman, as I stated, appointed by President Bush. Although Mr. Koskinen inherited these problems, he did not create them. Second, looking at how the IRS handled the hard drive crash, I do think Mr. Koskinen waited too long to inform the Committee on Finance and that the senior IRS leadership could have done a better job keeping track of the backup tapes. That said, there is zero evidence that these mistakes were politically motivated, and there is no reason to believe the potential loss of some of Lois Lerner's emails compromised the investigation. We recovered thousands of emails covering this period from the relevant people corresponding with Ms. Lerner. Even taking the potential loss of some emails into account, the bipartisan report concludes that ``the large volume of information we have received gives us a high degree of confidence in the accuracy of the conclusions reached during our investigation.'' Looking forward, Commissioner Koskinen is a skilled and experienced leader. I am confident he is going to work closely and cooperatively with Chairman Hatch, with myself, with Democrats and Republicans on the Committee on Finance to continue to improve the operation of the IRS Exempt Organizations Division. We also asked the inspector general to investigate four other cases in which there have been allegations of political motivation by the IRS. One involved a White House official who referred to a specific company when criticizing the use of tax loopholes. The question was whether he had received inside information from the IRS, and of course that would be a serious violation of the law. The other cases involved conservative groups that unfortunately had some of their confidential tax information inappropriately made public. These cases have generated intense congressional interest and lawsuits. The underlying concern, similar to the concern about the handling of the 501(c)(4) applications, was the serious and legitimate worry as to whether there had been an effort to exert political influence over the IRS--in effect, to use the IRS as a weapon against conservatives. Here, based on the information in the report, the inspector general's investigations have led to clear conclusions. The inspector general investigation of the White House official found he did not receive any confidential information from the IRS. He apparently was just shooting from the hip, which may be bad judgment, but it is not a crime. In the three cases where confidential taxpayer information was inappropriately disclosed, it was because of unintentional mistakes by low-level IRS employees, some of whom have been subject to administrative discipline. These mistakes were regrettable, and the staff has made bipartisan recommendations to prevent them from recurring, but the bottom line is that in each of these cases there was no effort to exert political pressure. In summary, our report tells a regrettable story. Many applicants for tax-exempt status were treated badly. They were treated in an unacceptable way, and they deserved better service from their government, but in the end this is a story about gross bureaucratic dysfunction. It is not about an attempt to exert political influence over or inject political bias into how the IRS does its job. Further, the main culprits are gone, the system has been improved, the committee has made a series of bipartisan recommendations to improve it further, and I think it is fair to say that both Democrats and Republicans on the Senate Committee on Finance--Chairman Hatch has worked very closely with me on this--are committed to making sure nothing like this vast bureaucratic bungling ever happens again. So we here in the Senate have more to do. We are going to have to do some hard thinking about one of the underlying issues, which is the money and politics, including in the context of tax-exempt organizations that are not supposed to be engaged primarily in political activity. As part of this--and I respect the views of Chairman Hatch and others who may disagree--I think the Congress has to come up with better standards. We ought to set--again, in a bipartisan way--to overhaul the 1959 regulatory jalopy. Just put our arms around that one. Here we are in the digital world with so many changes in our country, and we still have the basic 1959 approach to regulating these issues. We ought to establish rules of the road that fully respect First Amendment rights and also give all organizations--be they progressive, conservative or in between; whatever they are--better guidance about what they can and cannot do given their tax-exempt status. My own view is, when it comes to money and politics, we really can't get enough transparency. I hope we will be able to work on those issues in the future. In fact, the last time we had a bipartisan bill here was in the last Congress, when Senator Murkowski, our colleague from Alaska, joined me on a bill that said all major spending from everywhere--wherever you were; progressive, conservative--essentially had to be disclosed. So my own view is that we need more transparency, not less. Mr. President, I have some brief remarks to make on another subject, unless our chairman wants to make further comments. I will yield on this topic and let the chairman comment. Then after the chairman is done speaking, I will ask unanimous consent--and be certainly no more than 10 minutes on another subject--to speak after the chairman has had a chance.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I will be very brief. I thank my colleague from Arkansas for his patience. I know he has things he has to have done as well.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN. I was down here on the floor last night talking about the need for actually getting some real progress to fix the mess that the wildfire budgeting system in our country has become. I noted there have been several proposals offered, including one by myself and Senator Crapo called the Wildfire Disaster Funding Act, referred to the Budget Committee. There have been hearings held. There have been speeches given about the need to fix the broken system to provide Federal agencies with the help they need to battle the devastating blazes year in and year out. Senator Crapo and I have introduced a bill to fix this broken system, and we need to get some real results. In spite of all the talk, there hasn't been any real action. Twenty- four hours later and I am back, pleased to be able to stand here tonight to say several of our colleagues have heeded my call, and tomorrow I will be putting into the Congressional Record a colloquy with all of our signatures--Democrats and Republicans--committed to resolving this issue in the fall. We have been working since last night to set aside a way to work together this summer, with the fires in the West literally fueling the hunger to take meaningful steps this fall, to finally end fire borrowing, and to ensure that Federal agencies have the resources they need to prevent these infernos from igniting in the first place. Just today, the Forest Service released a report that makes the very clear point that, for the first time in its history, the Forest Service is routinely spending more than half of its budget battling wildfires. They note that the cost of fire suppression could well increase to almost $1.8 billion by 2025. This vicious cycle of underfunding prevention work while huge infernos burn up Federal fire suppression accounts is going to get worse, and what we are going to see as it does is the Forest Service becoming the fire service. That is not in America's interest. It is particularly damaging to my part of the country. I am pleased to be able to say that, in the last 24 hours, we have made some real progress in addressing this challenge. There is a commitment on both sides of the aisle now, here in the Senate, to get this fixed this fall. (The remarks of Mr. Wyden pertaining to the submission of S. Res. 246 are printed in today's Record under ``Submitted Resolutions.'')

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss an issue of great importance: helping vulnerable children stay safe and cared for by strengthening their families and connecting them to kin. I would like to begin with a hypothetical. Imagine a single mom with two kids and multiple part time jobs. She works long hours to provide for her family, but even then it is a struggle to pay the bills and keep food on the table. Reliable child care is extremely costly and out of reach. Because her work schedule changes week to week she is forced to leave her children unattended at times. Out of concern, a neighbor places a call to Child Protective Services, and a social worker then has to choose between two bad options--breaking up the family, or doing nothing at all to help them. Today, most youngsters in foster care aren't there because of physical or sexual abuse. Kids predominantly wind up in foster care because their biological families, like that hypothetical single mom, are ensnared in terribly desperate circumstances that lead to neglect. The fact is, whenever you talk with kids who have aged out of foster care about what could have helped them the most, you hear them say things like, ``helping my mom . . . helping my dad . . . helping my family.'' What that tells me is that youngsters know they're best served when a family can be propped up, not dismantled. Unfortunately, the child welfare system has too few tools for that to happen. Yesterday, the Finance Committee held a hearing to explore how to turn that system around--how to make a difference for kids early on so that they can grow up surrounded by family in a safe and loving home. I commend Chairman Hatch for his commitment to improving the lives of vulnerable kids and their families. The hearing was an important step forward. Back in the mid-1990s, there was a debate over whether sending kids to orphanages was the right idea. And I saw an opportunity for our child welfare policies to break into the enormous, untapped potential of kin. So I authored the Kinship Care Act, which said that aunts and uncles or grandparents who met the right standards would have first preference when it came to caring for a niece or nephew or grandchild. It became the first federal law of its kind. Now in 2015, I see an opportunity for Congress to take a similar approach, but go even further. I believe that building child welfare policies around proactivity and flexibility will help a lot more families stay together and thrive. States have already shown that with waivers from the rigid Federal funding system, they're able to turn smart ideas into meaningful results for kids and their families, There is a tremendous example that my home state of Oregon is currently putting in place. It's called Differential Response. Differential Response, as I see it, is all about recognizing that every kid is different, and every family faces unique challenges. So Oregon's system is approaching every case with the nuance it deserves. Today I--along with Senators Stabenow, Bennet, Casey, Brown, Cantwell, Schumer, and Menendez--am introducing the Family Stability and Kinship Care Act that will make badly needed flexibility a core part of our child welfare system. The purpose of this bill is to give states and tribes the ability to make modest front-end investments in family services and kinship placement in order to reduce costly and traumatic stays in foster care. Under current law, title IV-E of the Social Security Act, the nation's largest child welfare funding stream, provides states and tribes with a Federal funding match for children only after they are placed in foster care. In contrast, State and tribal innovations implemented through title IV-E waivers suggest that permitting spending for preventive family services can reduce the prevalence and length of foster care placements while maintaining or improving safety and permanency outcomes for children. Further, State experiences with subsidized guardianship demonstrate that when children cannot remain with their parents, they do best when placed with kin. This bill enhances Federal funding available under parts B and E of title IV of the Social Security Act for prevention and family services to help keep children safe and supported at home with their parents or other family members. It gives states and tribes the flexibility to adapt evidence-based family services to the specific needs of each family. It ensures that states and tribes are held accountable for allocating services in ways that maximize safety, permanency, and well- being for children, while minimizing the prevalence of lengthy foster care placements. We need more than two options--foster care or nothing--when the child protection system gets involved. By helping families afford child care, maybe it is possible to prevent outright neglect. Maybe mom or dad needs counseling or medical help. Maybe they need help covering the bills or finding employment. Oftentimes, a youngster's aunt, uncle, or grandparents could step up and take them in, but they shouldn't have to take on that job without assistance. More often than not, in my judgement, it's absolutely worth exploring those avenues before breaking a family apart. In fact, it can save resources in the long run without compromising on safety. I look forward to working with Chairman Hatch and the full Senate to advance this legislation and I am hopeful that together, we can make this critical investment in children and their families.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I wish to take a few minutes in my capacity as ranking Democrat on the Committee on Finance to talk about the upcoming 80th anniversary of a great moment in our country's history-- the creation of the Social Security Program on August 14, 1935. I am very pleased to be joined by all of my colleagues on this side of the aisle in the introduction of a resolution demonstrating how much we appreciate this historic anniversary. Thanks in large part to Social Security, old age in America is no longer synonymous with hardship. American workers have the great comfort of knowing that if the worst happens, Social Security will be there for them and their families. I remember how essential Social Security was to many of the older people I worked with when I was director of the Oregon Gray Panthers. However, eight short decades ago, seniors often lived in poverty and hard-working Americans had no guarantee of economic security. Our country was in the throes of the Great Depression. Unemployment topped 20 percent. You had bread lines for blocks, and the homeless population was growing. There was no social safety net, no lifeline that offered some measure of dignity. If a person lost their job, became disabled, suffered the loss of a family member, they were on their own. There was nowhere to turn. Life was difficult for many Americans but none more so than the poor, the elderly, or the disabled. Tragically, many aging and disabled Americans without family to care for them ended up destitute or on the street. America is now a different place, thanks in no small part to the protection of Social Security. It is one of the strongest threads in America's safety net, protecting the well-being of millions and keeping millions more out of poverty. This year nearly 60 million American workers and eligible family members will receive nearly $900 billion in retirement, survivors, and disability benefits. Among older Social Security beneficiaries, more than half of married couples and nearly three-quarters of unmarried individuals get the majority of their income from Social Security. As of 2014, 151 million Americans had earned the protection of disability insurance. That is a tremendous accomplishment. Well over 100 million workers and their families can go about their days with the confidence that they are financially protected in the event of a medical catastrophe because of Social Security. The program also provides indispensable benefits to nearly 7 million children. Without those benefits, many of the youngsters would face dire circumstances after the death or disability of a parent. None of this could have happened without the continuing support of the Congress. Time and time again, Members have come together on a bipartisan basis to ensure this vital program remains strong. The 1939 amendments to Social Security expanded retirement benefits. In 1954, the Congress passed amendments that provided protection for workers who became disabled. The Social Security amendments of 1980 and 1983 also made important changes that helped ensure the program's long-term viability. Social Security is one of America's great economic successes. The program is robust. In my view, there is big bipartisan interest in keeping it that way. I look forward to working with my colleagues and the ranking Democrat on the Finance Committee so that on both sides of the aisle we work together to ensure that Social Security continues to thrive for generations to come.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss an issue of great importance: helping vulnerable children stay safe and cared for by strengthening their families and connecting them to kin. I would like to begin with a hypothetical. Imagine a single mom with two kids and multiple part time jobs. She works long hours to provide for her family, but even then it is a struggle to pay the bills and keep food on the table. Reliable child care is extremely costly and out of reach. Because her work schedule changes week to week she is forced to leave her children unattended at times. Out of concern, a neighbor places a call to Child Protective Services, and a social worker then has to choose between two bad options--breaking up the family, or doing nothing at all to help them. Today, most youngsters in foster care aren't there because of physical or sexual abuse. Kids predominantly wind up in foster care because their biological families, like that hypothetical single mom, are ensnared in terribly desperate circumstances that lead to neglect. The fact is, whenever you talk with kids who have aged out of foster care about what could have helped them the most, you hear them say things like, ``helping my mom . . . helping my dad . . . helping my family.'' What that tells me is that youngsters know they're best served when a family can be propped up, not dismantled. Unfortunately, the child welfare system has too few tools for that to happen. Yesterday, the Finance Committee held a hearing to explore how to turn that system around--how to make a difference for kids early on so that they can grow up surrounded by family in a safe and loving home. I commend Chairman Hatch for his commitment to improving the lives of vulnerable kids and their families. The hearing was an important step forward. Back in the mid-1990s, there was a debate over whether sending kids to orphanages was the right idea. And I saw an opportunity for our child welfare policies to break into the enormous, untapped potential of kin. So I authored the Kinship Care Act, which said that aunts and uncles or grandparents who met the right standards would have first preference when it came to caring for a niece or nephew or grandchild. It became the first federal law of its kind. Now in 2015, I see an opportunity for Congress to take a similar approach, but go even further. I believe that building child welfare policies around proactivity and flexibility will help a lot more families stay together and thrive. States have already shown that with waivers from the rigid Federal funding system, they're able to turn smart ideas into meaningful results for kids and their families, There is a tremendous example that my home state of Oregon is currently putting in place. It's called Differential Response. Differential Response, as I see it, is all about recognizing that every kid is different, and every family faces unique challenges. So Oregon's system is approaching every case with the nuance it deserves. Today I--along with Senators Stabenow, Bennet, Casey, Brown, Cantwell, Schumer, and Menendez--am introducing the Family Stability and Kinship Care Act that will make badly needed flexibility a core part of our child welfare system. The purpose of this bill is to give states and tribes the ability to make modest front-end investments in family services and kinship placement in order to reduce costly and traumatic stays in foster care. Under current law, title IV-E of the Social Security Act, the nation's largest child welfare funding stream, provides states and tribes with a Federal funding match for children only after they are placed in foster care. In contrast, State and tribal innovations implemented through title IV-E waivers suggest that permitting spending for preventive family services can reduce the prevalence and length of foster care placements while maintaining or improving safety and permanency outcomes for children. Further, State experiences with subsidized guardianship demonstrate that when children cannot remain with their parents, they do best when placed with kin. This bill enhances Federal funding available under parts B and E of title IV of the Social Security Act for prevention and family services to help keep children safe and supported at home with their parents or other family members. It gives states and tribes the flexibility to adapt evidence-based family services to the specific needs of each family. It ensures that states and tribes are held accountable for allocating services in ways that maximize safety, permanency, and well- being for children, while minimizing the prevalence of lengthy foster care placements. We need more than two options--foster care or nothing--when the child protection system gets involved. By helping families afford child care, maybe it is possible to prevent outright neglect. Maybe mom or dad needs counseling or medical help. Maybe they need help covering the bills or finding employment. Oftentimes, a youngster's aunt, uncle, or grandparents could step up and take them in, but they shouldn't have to take on that job without assistance. More often than not, in my judgement, it's absolutely worth exploring those avenues before breaking a family apart. In fact, it can save resources in the long run without compromising on safety. I look forward to working with Chairman Hatch and the full Senate to advance this legislation and I am hopeful that together, we can make this critical investment in children and their families.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, so that all are clear with respect to where matters are with the cyber security legislation, a couple of days ago it was my fear that this bill would be brought up--it is a badly flawed bill--with no opportunity for Senators on either side of the aisle to fix the legislation. I was afraid that it would come up with no amendments and people would say ``Oh my goodness, there are serious cyber threats.'' And that is unquestionably correct. My constituents in Oregon, for example, have been hacked by the Chinese. I was concerned that people would say ``We have all of these cyber threats; we have to act'' and there would be no real opportunity to show how the legislation in its current form creates more problems than it solves. So that all concerned understand where things are, there are going to be more than 20 amendments to this badly flawed bill. Those of us who want to make sure there is a full airing of the issues have come to understand that there is no time limit that has yet been agreed to on those amendments. So there is going to be a real debate, and, of course, that is what the Senate is all about. I particularly wish to commend the millions of advocates around the country who spoke out. I understand there was something like 6 million faxes that were sent to Members of this body. I am going to take a few minutes--I see my colleagues are here as well--to describe where I think this debate is and give a sense of what the challenge is going forward. I start with the basic proposition that we have a very serious set of cyber security threats, and I touched on seeing it at home. Second, information sharing can be valuable. There is certainly a lot of it now. It can be constructive. Information sharing, however, without vigorous, robust privacy safeguards, will not be considered by millions of Americans to be a cyber security bill. Millions of Americans will say that legislation is a surveillance bill. So what I am going to do tonight--just for a few minutes because it is my understanding there are colleagues who would also like to speak-- is describe exactly where this debate is. As written, the cyber security legislation prevents law-abiding Americans from suing private companies that inappropriately share their personal information with the government. When I say personal information, I am talking about the contents of emails, financial information, basically any data at all that is stored electronically. CISA, as the bill is called, would allow private companies to share large volumes of their customers' personal information with the government after only a cursory review. Colleagues who want to look at that provision ought to take a look at page 16 of the bill. We were told repeatedly that this legislation is voluntary. The fact is, it is voluntary for the companies, but for the citizens of Pennsylvania, the citizens of Oregon, citizens across this country, it is not voluntary. The people of Pennsylvania won't be asked first whether they want their information sent to the government. Oregonians won't have the chance to say whether they want that information sent. For them, this legislation is mandatory. To explain the damage that I believe this legislation would do, I want to take a minute to explain how cyber security information sharing works now. Right now the Department of Homeland Security operates a national cyber security watch center 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. This watch center receives cyber security threat information from around the Federal Government and from private companies, and this watch center sends out alerts and bulletins to security professionals to provide them with technical information about cyber security threats. In fiscal year 2014, this watch center sent out nearly 12,000 of these alerts to more than 100,000 recipients. That happens today, with lots of companies participating. The system that is in place today includes rules to protect the privacy of law-abiding Americans. These rules ensure that companies have a strong interest in protecting the privacy of their customers. But the legislation as it has been written now overrides those rules. The bill in front of us prevents individual Americans from suing companies that have mishandled their private information. As a result, companies would suddenly, in my view, not have the same incentives with respect to caring about sharing their customers' personal information with the government. And my concern and the concern, I believe, of millions of Americans is that the interests of some who are overzealous--overzealous in government, overzealous in the private sector--would overwhelm the interests of all of those customers who voluntarily handed over their information. I thought I would give a couple of examples of the problems the bill in its current form causes. Imagine that a health insurance company finds out that millions of its customers' records have been stolen. If that company has any evidence about who the hackers were or how they stole this information, of course it makes sense to share that information with the government. But that company shouldn't simply say ``Here you go'' and hand millions of its customers' financial and medical information over to a wide array of government agencies. The records of the victims of a hack should not be treated the same way that information about the hacker is treated. If companies are sharing information for cyber security purposes, they ought to be required to make reasonable efforts to remove personal information that isn't needed for cyber security before that information is handed over to the government. And those government agencies ought to focus on using that information to combat a cyber security threat. That, I say to my colleagues, is not what the bill says. Page 16 of the bill would very clearly authorize companies to share large amounts of personal information that is unnecessary for cyber security, after only a cursory review. Now I wish to speak about just one other issue specifically that I think Senators are not familiar with, and that is the issue of cyber signatures. Cyber signatures are essentially recognizable patterns in online code. A number of informed observers have raised the concern that once individual cyber signatures are shoveled over to the government by private companies, they could be used as the basis for broad surveillance affecting law-abiding Americans. I am not going to confirm or deny any of the press reports that have raised concerns about cyber signatures being used in this way, but I believe Senators should understand that this is certainly--and it is being widely discussed in the public arena--a theoretical possibility, and that helps underscore the importance of including a strong requirement for private companies to remove unrelated personal information about their customers before dumping data over to the government. In wrapping up, I would be remiss if I didn't note that a secret Justice Department legal opinion that is clearly relevant to the cyber security debate continues to be withheld from the public. This opinion interprets common commercial service agreements, and in my judgment it is inconsistent with the public's understanding of the law. So once again we have this question of what happens when the people of Pennsylvania, Virginia, or Oregon think there is a law because they have read it in the public arena or on their iPad at home and then there is a secret interpretation. I have urged the Justice Department to withdraw that secret Department of Justice opinion that relates directly to the cyber security debate. They have declined to do so. I suspect many Senators haven't had the chance to review it. As I have done before on this type of topic, I would urge Senators or their staffs to take the time to read it because I believe that understanding the executive branch's interpretation of these agreements is an important part of understanding the relevant legal landscape on cyber security. I am going to close by speaking about the question of effectiveness. I think we all understand that we are facing very real cyber threats. I am of the view that this bill in its present form would do little, if anything, to stop large, sophisticated cyber attacks like the Office of Personnel Management had. I don't think Senators ought to just take my word for it. In April, 65 technologists and cyber security professionals expressed their opposition to the bill in a letter to Chairman Burr and Vice Chairman Feinstein. In referring to the bill and two similar bills, they wrote: We appreciate your interest in making our networks more secure, but the legislation proposed does not materially further that goal, and at the same time it puts our users' privacy at risk. As they wrap up their letter, this group of technologists and cyber security professionals state: These bills weaken privacy law without promoting security. That has always been my concern. If we look back at our experiences, we have tried to write these new digital ground rules. Fortunately, we took a step in the right direction as it related to NSA rules. The challenge has always been the same. The people of our country want to be safe and secure in their homes and in their businesses and in their communities, and they want their liberty. Ben Franklin said anybody who gives up their liberty to have security doesn't deserve either. What troubled me and why I am glad that the Senate has stepped back from precipitous action where we would have just passed this bill without any amendments--we will have a chance in the fall to look at ways to address cyber security in a fashion that I think does respond to what our people want, and that is to show that security--in this case, cyber security--and liberty are not mutually exclusive. It is sensible policies worked out in a bipartisan way that will respond to the needs of this country in what is unquestionably a dangerous time. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, as the Senate prepares for the month of August in our home States, I want to discuss tonight what I believe to be an urgent issue: The West is on fire. There is a really serious prospect that my part of the country is going to get hit by what I call the terrible trifecta--drought, high temperatures, and enormous fuel load on the forest floor. When you couple that with a lightning strike--which is not exactly a rarity in my part of the world--all of a sudden you can have on your hands an inferno. The fires are getting bigger, they are lasting longer, and they are doing more damage. Senators here on both sides of the aisle--Democrats and Republicans-- have come to realize that our system for fighting fire is a broken, dysfunctional mess. What happens is, historically, prevention gets short shrift. The agencies can't do enough thinning; they can't do enough of the preventive work to reduce the fuel load on the forest floor. Then you have one of those lightning strikes, and all of a sudden there is a huge fire because the fuel buildup is so great on the forest floor. The agencies then run out of money putting these fires out because they are getting bigger, and they are lasting longer. The problem just keeps getting worse because the agencies then have to rob the prevention fund in order to fight these big fires. In other words, the agencies borrow from the prevention fund, and the problem gets worse because by shorting the prevention fund it creates the prospect of still more big fires in the future. With the West burning, the Western Governor's Association--a bipartisan group--put out a new update of how big the recent fires are. So far in 2015, nearly 6 million acres have burned. That is an area bigger than the State of New Jersey, scorched in massive fires. In my home State, a wildfire in Douglas County in southern Oregon has spread to over 16,000 acres, with 1,400 crew members battling a blaze that is threatening more than 300 homes. According to recent reports, 20,000 acres were scorched by one single fire in northern California in a matter of only 5 hours. That is 20,000 acres--nearly the size of the entire city of Bend, OR--that burned in the time span of an extra-inning baseball game. With the Forest Service budget effectively flatlined and the higher cost of fighting fires producing this robbing of other programs that I have described--the fire borrowing--what you have is a vicious, self- defeating circle of firefighting and shoddy budgeting, which, in effect, will cause an even bigger crisis in the future because you shorted the prevention fund. In 10 years, if this isn't fixed--what is known as fire borrowing--the Forest Service says it will be spending two-thirds of its entire budget on suppressing wildfires, and my constituents say they will be calling the Forest Service the Fire Service because that is essentially what they will be. This is particularly serious right now, which is why I came to the floor tonight to try to drive home the urgency of this issue, because it is so dry in the West. This year Governor Brown of my home State has declared drought emergencies in 23 of our 36 counties. All 36 counties are experiencing severe drought, according to the National Drought Center. It is a very dangerous mix of factors, what I have come to call the terrible trifecta of drought and temperatures and fuel load. They all came together and turned the West into a virtual tinderbox. To try to fix this, my colleague Senator Crapo and I have worked together for quite some time to in effect say that what we ought to do is break this dysfunctional system of fighting fires and go with a different approach. What we would say is that the biggest fires--the 1 or 2 percent of the megafires--we ought to fight them from the disaster fund because they really are disasters. Use the prevention fund for what it is intended, which is prevention, so we can keep from having those megafires. The good news is that the Congressional Budget Office--my colleague is new here, but he already knows that the Congressional Budget Office is our official scorekeeper--says that there really aren't added costs for this approach because while you would spend a bit more money trying to put out those megafires, you would save some money by not cheating the prevention fund and not having so many fires in the first place. In effect, it is a lot smarter for the agencies to focus on keeping our forests healthy and clear of the fuels that go up in flames when lightning strikes. So we do the preventive work and we no longer are shorting it by all the fire borrowing which I have just described. Senator Crapo and I have been able to get well over 250 organizations to go on record in support of our idea. These are groups associated with forestry policy, environmental folks, industry personnel, people across the political spectrum. More than 250 groups have said they are in support of this. The Under Secretary of Agriculture, Robert Bonnie, noted in a recent letter that the proposal Senator Crapo and I have offered is one that both fixes fire borrowing and provides the resources needed to prevent these catastrophic wildfires down the line. Fifteen of our colleagues here in the Senate have supported the bill, and 123 Members in the other body have also supported the bill. The administration is on board. The agencies that battle these fires are waiting for the Congress to act. Each day, the reality in the West is that immensely brave men and women are on the ground fighting fires, and they risk their lives to keep our homes and communities protected. It is long, long, long past time for the Congress to step up, fix this budgetary mess, and guarantee that the funding is there to fight fires and to prevent them in the first place. I filed our bipartisan bill as an amendment to the Transportation bill. I filed a wildfire amendment to the budget resolution. I filed the Senate Interior appropriations wildfire language as an amendment to the Transportation bill. And I believe this is the fourth time in recent months I have been on the floor talking about this issue, and that is in addition to talking about it in the budget markup and in several hearings in the natural resources committee that I had the honor to chair in the last Congress. I see my new colleague in the chair, and he has been doing good work on this fire borrowing issue. And even with everything else we are dealing with here in the Senate, I think it is very important that we focus on an actual way to leave with an agreement on how this is actually going to get fixed and get done. In that regard, I have been talking in the last day or so with colleagues in both political parties, and I think there is now this sense of urgency because we see it not only on TV, but every time we are home, we go to fire briefings. As the Presiding Officer knows, even fire briefings have changed very dramatically. We used to have a fire briefing in July, and now we have fire briefings--as I did--in the winter because the Forest Service and the folks at BLM often say they are not even sure when one fire season has ended and the next one has begun because these challenges have gotten so great. Senator Crapo and I, with this bill that has gotten more than 250 organizations sponsoring it, have talked in just the last few hours. We want to work with all of our colleagues to make sure that we get some sense because our constituents are going to ask about this. They are going to ask about this issue this summer. They are going to ask: How is the Senate actually going to get this done? How is the Senate going to fix this broken, dysfunctional system of fighting fires? In effect, year after year--and I gather there will be some new analyses coming out--the entire budget for the Forest Service is getting eaten up in fighting these counterproductive fires. Senator Crapo and I have a proposal that received a favorable score from the Budget Committee. I know my colleague in the chair has also done very good work on these issues, as have a number of Senators on both sides of the aisle. Given the good will I have seen among Senators here in the last couple of days as we talked about what this really means, given the urgency and because we are going home and seeing constituents in August, I am convinced we can have an agreement on how this is going to get fixed. That is why I wanted to come to the floor tonight, because there are a lot of topics that are still going to be tackled in the next few days before the Senate wraps up. I want it understood that our part of the country is on fire. It is on fire. We have communities burning up, and business as usual is unacceptable. Senator Crapo and I have offered a proposal that we think will turn this around, and other colleagues have very good ideas as well. What is nonnegotiable is just saying: Oh, you know, maybe we will take care of it at the end of the year or on standard congressional time. That is not good enough for the West, which is burning up. I invite my colleagues here, as we move forward in the last few days before the August recess, to join me, Senator Crapo, and colleagues in both political parties to make sure that people see--as we go home to talk to the people we have the honor to represent--that this is now going to actually get fixed and that the Senate is coming together to make sure it actually gets done. We are going to turn this around so that we can do more to prevent fires in the rural west, No. 1, and No. 2, fight them in a more cost-effective way. With that, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.