Ron Wyden

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I will be very brief. I understand there has already been an objection. I will speak later in the afternoon or early evening in some detail about why I have significant reservations with respect to this legislation. To say--as we heard again and again throughout the day--that this is about voluntary information sharing is essentially only half true. The fact is, companies could volunteer to share their customers' information with the government, but they wouldn't have to ask for permission from their customers before handing it over. That is one reason every major organization with expertise and interest on privacy issues has had reservations about the bill. It may be voluntary for companies, but it is mandatory for their customers and their consumers. They are not given the opportunity to opt out. The legislation has been public for months, and dozens of cyber security experts have said it wouldn't do much to stop sophisticated, large-scale attacks such as the horrendous attack at the Office of Personnel Management. On Friday, the Department of Homeland Security--an absolutely essential agency as it relates to this bill--wrote a letter to our colleague, the distinguished Senator from Minnesota, Mr. Franken, and said if this bill's approach is adopted, ``the complexity and inefficiency of any information sharing program will markedly increase.'' The Department of Homeland Security added that the bill ``could sweep away important privacy protections.'' That is a pretty strong indictment from the agency that would be in charge of implementing the legislation. As I have indicated a couple of times in the last day or so, I think the managers, Senator Feinstein and Senator Burr, have made several positive changes, but the bottom line is it doesn't address the very substantial privacy concerns that relate to this bill. The fact is, cyber security is a very serious problem in America. Oregonians know a lot about it because one of our large employers was hacked by the Chinese. SolarWorld was hacked by the Chinese because they insisted on enforcing their rights under trade law. In fact, our government indicted the Chinese for the hack of my constituents and others. So cyber security is a serious problem. Information sharing can play a constructive role, but information sharing without robust privacy safeguards is really not a cyber security bill. It is going to be seen by millions of Americans as a surveillance bill, and that is why it is so important that there be strong privacy guidelines. The fact is, in the managers' legislation, the section allowing companies to hand over large volumes of information with only a cursory review would be essentially unmodified. The Department of Homeland Security asked for some specific changes to the language, which the managers' amendment does not include. So my hope is, we are going to have a chance to have a real debate on this issue. Personally, I would rather go down a different route with respect to cyber security legislation. In particular, I recommend the very fine data breach bill of our colleague from Vermont Senator Leahy, but if Senators have their hearts set on doing the bill before us, it is going to need some very substantial amendments, both to ensure that we show the American people that security and privacy are not mutually exclusive, that we can do both, and to address the very serious operational reservations the Department of Homeland Security has raised. Neither set of concerns is thoroughly addressed by the managers' amendment. So my hope is that we are going to have a chance to make some very significant reforms in this legislation. After seeing what has happened over the last few weeks, where the government isn't exactly doing an ideal job of securing the data it has, and now we are going to propose legislation that has private companies, without the permission of their customers, for example, to dump large quantities of their customers' data over to the government with only a cursory review--this legislation is not going to be real attractive to the millions of Americans who sent us to represent them. In fact, in just the last few days, I read in the media that some of the opponents of this legislation have sent something like 6 million faxes to the Senate--and people wonder if there are still fax machines. I guess the point is to demonstrate it is important that we understand, as we look at digital communications, what the challenge is. I will have more to say about this later in the afternoon and in the evening, but I wanted to take this opportunity, since we have just gotten out of the party caucuses, to make some corrections with respect to what we were told this morning and particularly on this question about how this is a voluntary bill. Ask millions of Americans whether it is voluntary when companies can hand over their private information to the government without their permission. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, this weekend I watched the Planned Parenthood videos that are in the news, including one in which the organization's leadership says very clearly that the statements made by some of their staff are totally unacceptable. I believe that is important for everyone to hear. With that said, here is the great danger with the legislation before the Senate today: This bill paints a big red target on some of the most basic, essential health care services for women in America: birth control, gone; pregnancy tests, gone; prenatal services, gone; HIV tests, gone; breast cancer screenings, gone; cervical cancer screenings, gone; ovarian cancer screenings, gone; vaccinations that prevent cancers, gone; treatment for urinary tract infections, gone; testing and treatment for sexually transmitted infections, gone; basic physical exams, gone; treatment for digestive or breathing problems, gone; treatment for chronic conditions, gone; pediatric care, gone; adoption referrals, gone; nutrition programs, gone; referrals to hospitals and specialists, gone. When you wipe out Planned Parenthood's funding, you dramatically and painfully reduce women's access to services that have absolutely nothing to do with abortion--nothing to do with abortion. This bill will take away the guarantee that Medicaid patients have their free choice of doctors in the program. The people who this bill will hurt the most are poor women who have nowhere else to turn. I urge my colleagues today to drop this misguided campaign. Instead of restricting women's access to health care services--such as the ones I have just outlined--let's work on a bipartisan basis to improve access to health care services for women in America. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I am a firm believer in the power of higher education. It is our Nation's responsibility to honor the institutions that consistently provide America's youth with the skills necessary to make our country a better place. I am thrilled to recognize the achievements of Oregon State University's Hatfield Marine Science Center, on its 50th anniversary as a center for marine studies. Over the last half-century, thanks in large part to early collaboration with the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, the Hatfield Center has served students from community college to post-doctoral candidates. In addition to providing educational opportunities, the Hatfield Center works closely with the Environmental Protection Agency to research the most pressing environmental issues of our generation. As climate change and sustainability increasingly impact our Nation's agriculture and energy policies, Oregonians can take comfort in knowing that OSU's Marine Science Center has the technology and partnerships necessary to spearhead State, national and global initiatives. It always amazes me how quickly novel ideas transform into success stories. Since its establishment in 1965, the Hatfield Marine Science Center has worked extensively with the colleges of Oregon State University and various State and Federal agencies to produce seawater systems, experimental wet labs, and other programs that have attracted some of the Nation's top scientific minds. It gives me great pleasure to say that the Hatfield Marine Science Center is home to the Coastal Oregon Marine Experiment Station--a program recognized internationally for its innovative approach to the study of marine mammals. I am particularly excited to witness the results of OSU's world-class Marine Studies Initiative. In addition to the construction of a top- notch research and teaching facility, the Marine Studies Initiative will offer students the opportunity to see how marine studies intersects with the other elements of a liberal arts education. Thousands of young adults, as well as experienced professionals, will gain a greater appreciation for the role of business, government, and big data in the world of marine studies. The addition of an undergraduate degree program in marine studies, projected to attract 500 students in-residence to Newport by 2025, will yield tremendous partnerships in the years ahead. The Federal Area Redevelopment Administration must be incredibly proud of the intellectual profit that its $960,000 investment has produced. The future of our planet depends upon unique and innovative approaches to the environmental challenges of our era. Higher education is an integral part of the solution. But more specifically, interdisciplinary programs that promote awareness of agricultural, energy, and oceanic issues, and that simultaneously connect the environment to the liberal arts, are a key to building the training necessary to solve imminent problems. I could not be prouder of what OSU's Hatfield Marine Science Center means for our State, our Nation, and for the world.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I will be brief. I understand why our colleagues want to respond in some way to the horrendous hack at the Office of Personnel Management. I wish to say to my colleagues that it needs to be a response that is going to work. My concern is that this bill, in its present form, will create more problems than it solves, and it would be a mistake to bring it up without agreeing to an inclusive process for considering relevant amendments. I appreciate that the sponsors of the bill have been working on a managers' amendment to address some of the very serious concerns that have been raised. My own view is that the bill needs a lot more work. For example, the managers' amendment does not fix the provision of this bill that will allow private companies to hand over large volumes of their customers' personal information to the Government with only a cursory review, even if that information is not necessary for cyber security. Cyber security experts and privacy advocates have been raising concerns about these issues for many months. They state that they have sent something like 6 million communications to the Hill in the last few days. For me, the bottom line is that the legislation, as it stands today, doesn't do a whole lot to protect U.S. networks against sophisticated hacks, and it will do a lot to undermine the privacy rights of the American people. I see the distinguished senior Senator from California here, and I know she has a different view. My colleague from North Carolina is here. I look forward to working with both of them and the Senate and hope that we will have an inclusive debate that will ensure that all sides get a chance to raise their concerns. Cyber security is a very real problem in America. My constituents have been hacked. In fact, the Chinese were indicted for hacking my constituents. Information sharing can play a valuable role. Yet information sharing without vigorous and robust privacy safeguards will be seen by the American people as a surveillance bill. That is a fact. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, 50 years ago today, President Lyndon Johnson signed into law the Social Security Act amendments that created Medicare and Medicaid. Our country slammed the door on the days when far too many older people languished in poverty without the financial security that comes from affordable, high-quality health care. It was a day when sick, older people were warehoused on poor farms and in almshouses. Just picture that. On the edge of town we had older people, literally without a shred of dignity, in what came to be known as almshouses. But Lyndon Johnson and others said that had to be changed, and five decades ago it did. Today, more than 100 million Americans have access to high-quality health care thanks to Medicare and Medicaid. We can measure the remarkable success of these programs in so many ways, but in my judgment, one of the most important and most appealing aspects of Medicare and Medicaid is their ability to grow, their ability to change, and their ability to evolve to meet the needs of our country. The reality is that Medicare in 2015 is very different from Medicare in 1965. Medicare in 1965 was about something like a broken ankle. If it was a serious break, you would be in the hospital--Part A. If it was not a particularly serious break, you would go to the doctor--that was Part B. That was Medicare circa 1965. Today, Medicare is about chronic illness, it is about cancer, it is about diabetes, it is about stroke, and it is about heart disease. You put Alzheimer's in, and that is well more than 90 percent of the Medicare Program. So it is a very different Medicare Program today than it was in 1965. One of the aspects of Medicare and Medicaid I find so appealing is they have shown a certain ability, a sense of creativity, to always evolve with the times. What I would like to do is take a few minutes to describe how I think Medicare and Medicaid are going to change in the next 50 years because I think there are some remarkable developments ahead. I see my wonderful colleague from the Senate Committee on Finance. She has been very involved in a number of these changes that have been so exciting in Medicare and Medicaid. What I am going to do this afternoon is just take a few minutes to talk about four or five trends that I think are going to be led by these two programs that have done so much for seniors and vulnerable people in our country. The first is, I believe Medicare and Medicaid are going to lead a revolution in caring for vulnerable people at home. Our health care programs are going to give seniors more of what they want, which is to secure treatment at home where they are more comfortable. I think people are going to be amazed to see that seniors will get more of what they want, which is treatment at home--in Michigan, in Oregon, in Nebraska--and we now have hard information that it will be less expensive for older people to get what they want. In the Affordable Care Act, I was able to author a provision with our colleague, the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Markey, the Independence At Home Program. This program has already shown it can save more than $3,000, on average, for every patient who takes part. So picture that. This is not an example of reducing the Medicare guarantee--these guaranteed secure benefits that older people in every part of America rely on. This is about protecting the Medicare guarantee and doing it in a way that keeps seniors happier and costs less money. That is a pretty good package by anybody's calculation. In my home State of Oregon, the Medicaid Program also has a smart policy that tracks this focus on caring for the vulnerable at home. In effect, what Oregon Medicaid has done is allow health care providers to offer services that go beyond what many might consider the textbook definition of a medical service. It is all about keeping people healthier at home and out of the emergency room. So instead of waiting to treat broken ankles or wrists, perhaps in a hospital emergency room, after a senior falls again and again and again, what we are now doing in Oregon Medicaid is saying the staff of this program will visit the senior's home and perhaps replace the broken floorboards or the dangerous rugs that are causing the seniors to slip again and again and go to the hospital emergency room. Think about that. You could help a little bit at home by replacing a dangerous rug or you could have somebody slip and fall again and again and again and go to the hospital emergency room. Again, replacing that dangerous rug wouldn't probably meet the clinical definition of a medical service as it was always determined in years past, but now we are seeing it as part of having older people in a position to be at home, where they are more comfortable, for less money. The second significant development where I think Medicare and Medicaid are going to lead is on pharmaceuticals. I think the pricing of prescription drugs in the future is going to be connected in some fashion to the value of treatment. We have seen remarkable changes in pharmaceuticals. The reality is that in the last 10 years we have seen real cures for illnesses where there was a death sentence perhaps a decade ago, but the sticker prices on some of these pharmaceuticals are astronomical. For so many working-class families and seniors of modest means, they look at these prices and say this just defies common sense, and they seem to get more expensive over time. Sometimes there is a six-figure pricetag. The reality is Medicare and Medicaid weren't set up for these kinds of costs. The experts at the Congressional Budget Office are starting to ring the alarm bell, particularly about the health of Medicare Part D. Addressing this issue is going to take a lot of vigorous debate in the Congress, but it can't be ducked any longer. Senator Grassley and I have been working for about a year now in looking into SOVALDI, one of the hepatitis C drugs, which has had enormous ramifications for health programs--Medicare, Medicaid, and others--and we are continuing our work. Third, in addition to pharmaceuticals and home care, I think Medicare is going to lead the revolution for open access to health care data. Again, Senator Grassley and I have put a lot of sweat equity into the issue of data transparency in Medicare. It paid off in 2014, when the Obama administration, to its credit, opened up a massive trove of information. The wave of disclosure that began, particularly with doctors--and the Wall Street Journal reported this very extensively-- must keep rolling forward. The next step is turning open data into valuable tools and getting them into patients' hands. Health care data, packaged the right way, ought to help seniors and others choose doctors and nursing homes. It ought to help figure out which hospitals and specialists excel in certain areas, and it ought to help show exactly what you get for your dollar with various treatments or doctors. Fourth, I believe Medicare is going to lead the debate on improving end-of-life care. All the roads with respect to end-of-life care, in my view, point toward patients having more choices and a better quality of life. In my view, we ought to make sure patients are in the driver's seat. In this regard, I was very pleased the Obama administration announced just a few days ago a real breakthrough in terms of end-of- life care. I think we have all had the debate. We certainly had that debate in the Affordable Care Act, where we heard about seniors not being given the opportunity to choose life, to choose cures, and they were going to, in effect, be receiving what amounted to death sentences. In the Affordable Care Act, I was able to get included a provision that made it clear that is not what this debate would be all about. For the first time it would be possible for an individual who is receiving hospice care to also have the option for curative care. In other words, they would not have to sacrifice one for the other. That is very important to patients because even when patients are contemplating the prospect of hospice care, they want to know--because it is almost in our gene pool as Americans, as Nebraskans, and Oregonians--whether there may be a cure. Maybe our ingenuity will come up with a cure, and they want to have that hope. Now they are going to have it. The result of the change is called concurrent care--the Care Choices model. For the first time patients and families will be in the driver's seat and they will not have to give up the prospect of curative care in order to get hospice. For the first time we are giving those who want treatment in hospice some real flexibility. Next, I think Medicare is going to go further to protect Americans with catastrophic coverage. The reality is that millions of Americans who are younger than 65 are protected against the huge expense of an accident or serious illness. This is an area where I think Medicare, having led in so many areas with the kind of creative genius I have described--going to show the way on home care, pharmaceuticals, end-of- life care, and more access to data--that most advocates for seniors say Medicare has a little catching up to do. Seniors ought to have the safety of an out-of-pocket maximum in Medicare. I know this is an area I very much look forward to talking to my colleague from Michigan about. She has been a wonderful advocate for seniors throughout all her career in public service. I think colleagues on the Committee on Finance of both political parties are going to say, if there is catastrophic protection in the private sector, it is high time we have it for seniors on Medicare. I think this is an area we will also be talking about. I want to wrap up with one last point; that is, about Medicaid. I also believe more States are going to come around and expand their Medicaid Programs. It took nearly two decades for all 50 States to adopt Medicaid initially, so there is already a history of this unfolding over time. When we look at the numbers, we see the proposition and the benefit of expanding Medicaid is not exactly some kind of theoretical notion. A new study shows there is a gulf opening in terms of access to health care between States that have expanded Medicaid and States that have not. In our country, everybody should have access to medical care, regardless of their ZIP Code, but it is not only a question of what is best for the health of our people, it can often be pretty important to a State's economy. A recent study found that Kentucky and their cost of covering new Medicaid patients will be far outstripped by the other economic benefits of expanding the program. In my view, more States are likely to do the right thing by their citizens and their economies, and the gulf between those States that cover individuals on Medicaid and those that do not will narrow. Mr. President, I am going to close on a little bit of a personal note. My background is working with older people. Years ago I was director of the Oregon Gray Panthers. It was an extraordinary honor to be able to do this. Those were the days when if a town had a lunch program for older people, it was considered a big deal. Senator Stabenow was starting her career in the Michigan Legislature, and she remembers those days. It was a big deal when a town just had a lunch program where older people could congregate. That was considered a pretty serious array of senior services because you could get a few things there where older people got lunch. So as we have heard, now we are looking at the opportunities for extraordinary innovation. Elizabeth Holmes was here today and had a chance to visit with several Members. She has taken the whole notion of personalized medicine--and personalized medicine where in effect an individual could order their own test, and it costs only a few dollars. The State of Arizona has already embraced it. She is talking to government officials about something that would empower patients and would make sense from a health quality standpoint and from the standpoint of cost. She is a young, very gifted woman. I believe she is a graduate of Stanford, my alma mater. I talked yesterday to her about this. I could just see the enthusiasm for the future of health care and what she has already been able to accomplish and what she is going to be able to do in the days ahead with this new focus on personalized medicine and tests that empower patients to make their own decisions about health care. As to the sums of money that are involved for the tests, I am not sure they are even going to be able to be processed by government computers because they are too small. We are going to save too much money. So there are going to be very exciting developments ahead for Medicare and Medicaid. The last 50 years have been an extraordinary run for these programs. It is a personal thrill for me to have been involved in the early years of these programs. Now they are essential to the well-being of more than 100 million Americans. We take this special day to kind of savor how much progress has been made from the days when America had poorhouses and almshouses for seniors to today, where Medicare is leading the way on home care and disclosing data and looking at new approaches with respect to health tests, such as what Elizabeth Holmes has been here to visit on. We can see that with Medicare and Medicaid, their particular genius is that they are always keeping up with the times and looking to new approaches that better meet the needs of older people and do it in an affordable fashion. I will close by way of saying that I don't think there is a single area I have talked about--I know my colleague and the Chair are members of a different political parties--or I don't think there is a single issue that I have brought up here in the last 15 or 20 minutes that Democrats and Republicans can't find common ground on. In fact, Chairman Hatch in the Finance Committee, to his credit, has said that by the end of the year he wants Democrats and Republicans on our committee to produce a bill dealing with chronic illness--which, as I suggested, is what Medicare is all about and is responsible for 90 percent of the spending. So on that hopeful note, after an incredible 50-year run, I think the next 50 years are going to be even better. In the four or five areas that I have been talking about for a few minutes, I don't think there is a one of them where Democrats and Republicans can't find common ground. I know my colleague from Michigan is waiting to speak. I will note as I wrap up that she has really been a leader in this field, particularly in getting Democrats and Republicans together. By the way, as she begins her speech, I would note that many Americans are going to receive better mental health care services in the years ahead largely due to the work--the bipartisan work--of my colleague on these issues. So I am happy to wrap up my comments and look forward to hearing from my colleague from Michigan. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, as our Nation commemorates the 70th anniversary of the end of World War II, I would like to recognize and honor the achievements of the Keep the Spirit of '45 Alive coalition, as well as the remarkable legacy of BG James B. Thayer, Sr. I am proud to speak today in recognition of the devotion exhibited by the Oregon Spirit of '45 organization, and by one of Oregon's finest. Over the past 5 years, the Keep the Spirit of '45 coalition has been instrumental in convincing Congress, and various State legislatures, to designate an annual Spirit of '45 Day in August. I am incredibly proud that Oregon is our Nation's first State to legislate a permanent State Spirit of '45 Day to honor the valiant men and women who served on the battlefields and on America's home front. However, I am even more proud of Governor Brown's recent decision to designate the week of August 9- 16 to be WWII 70th Anniversary Spirit of '45 Commemorative Week, a period of profound appreciation and reflection for the actions of a truly inspirational generation. It has been wonderful to witness the hard work of Oregon's Spirit of '45 organization this year. From six performances across the State by Oregon's 234th Army Band to wreath laying ceremonies, all of the events took an extraordinary amount of planning and initiative. Oregon has truly developed a unique State plan to commemorate the end of WWII; a plan that not only involves an unprecedented concert tour, but that also includes a worldwide tribute coordinated with WWII allies. I also look forward to what is unfolding on the national level: the flyovers by WWII aircraft, the swing dances and concerts, and the performance of ``Taps'' during a wreath laying ceremony that will bring many great Nations together. Across Oregon and the United States, younger generations will truly appreciate our Nation's successful efforts to defend freedom worldwide, as well as the 70th anniversary of VJ Day-- which marked the end of the conflict on August 14, 1945. As I recognize the efforts of the Keep the Spirit of '45 Alive coalition, I must also express my gratitude for General Thayer, who serves as the coalition's ground forces spokesperson in Oregon. He has served as a guiding force behind the Spirit of '45 organization in Oregon. The recipient of numerous military awards, including the Silver and Bronze Stars, General Thayer helped save the lives of over 15,000 Hungarian Jewish refugees. But his legacy does not end there. Following his heroic liberation of the Nazi Death Camp Gunskirchen-Lager, General Thayer served in the Oregon State Defense Force, eventually ascending to the rank of commander. His willingness to serve his country after WWII, and work his way through the ranks, as well as his distinguished civilian career, speaks highly of his character. It is our Nation's responsibility to ensure that the men and women who stand by our country are honored for their individual and collective sacrifices. Observing the Spirit of '45 Day begins the process of properly commemorating the sacrifices of our Nation's veterans and home front, at a time when democracy and human rights were threatened around the world. It is also an opportunity for us to remember the shared sacrifice, commitment to service to community and country, and national unity of our WWII generation so that their example will continue to inspire future generations of Americans, especially the youth of our country.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today, I am proud to stand up for fairness by introducing legislation with my Senate colleague, Senator Tom Udall of New Mexico, to ensure American taxpayers receive the full value of coal produced on public lands. The Coal Royalty Fairness Act would require the Interior Department to collect royalties for coal mined on Federal lands based on the actual market value of coal. This bill is based on current successful practices in Montana--the Nation's second largest Federal coal- producing State. Currently, some private mining companies sell coal to their own affiliated companies at a lower cost than market value, and pay Federal royalties based on the cheaper, first point of sale. American taxpayers are getting ripped off by coal companies under the current, broken coal royalties system. I raised concerns about this 2 years ago, and today, Senator Udall and I are introducing legislation to get the public every penny owed by companies that may be taking advantage of a loose system. Instead of subsidizing private coal companies, it is time to put this money back where it belongs--into rural communities and the pockets of taxpayers. Our bill will require the Interior Department to collect royalties based on the actual market value of coal, not the below-market price they charge their own companies. Our bill will also bring some much-needed transparency to the Federal coal program by requiring the Interior Department to publish more information and calling for Government Accountability Office to review the program every 3 years. I urge my colleagues to join Senator Udall and me by cosponsoring and ultimately passing this important bill. 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 proud to stand up for fairness by introducing legislation with my Senate colleague, Senator Tom Udall of New Mexico, to ensure American taxpayers receive the full value of coal produced on public lands. The Coal Royalty Fairness Act would require the Interior Department to collect royalties for coal mined on Federal lands based on the actual market value of coal. This bill is based on current successful practices in Montana--the Nation's second largest Federal coal- producing State. Currently, some private mining companies sell coal to their own affiliated companies at a lower cost than market value, and pay Federal royalties based on the cheaper, first point of sale. American taxpayers are getting ripped off by coal companies under the current, broken coal royalties system. I raised concerns about this 2 years ago, and today, Senator Udall and I are introducing legislation to get the public every penny owed by companies that may be taking advantage of a loose system. Instead of subsidizing private coal companies, it is time to put this money back where it belongs--into rural communities and the pockets of taxpayers. Our bill will require the Interior Department to collect royalties based on the actual market value of coal, not the below-market price they charge their own companies. Our bill will also bring some much-needed transparency to the Federal coal program by requiring the Interior Department to publish more information and calling for Government Accountability Office to review the program every 3 years. I urge my colleagues to join Senator Udall and me by cosponsoring and ultimately passing this important bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I wish to bring attention to a genetic condition known as Usher syndrome. Usher syndrome is the most common form of combined deafness and blindness in the United States, impacting as many as 50,000 Americans, not including their families, friends, and communities. It is estimated that 82 percent of those afflicted by deaf-blindness are unemployed. In the United States, the annual economic cost of blindness alone is estimated at 145 billion dollars. Usher syndrome results when there are mutations in genes that are important for the function of both photoreceptors in the retina and hair cells in the cochlea, or inner ear. To date, 11 genes have been identified that can cause different subtypes of Usher syndrome when mutations take place. These mutations usually lead to a deficiency of a protein that is critical for the health and function of the retina and cochlea. Usher type 1 individuals are born deaf and then learn, often before adolescence, that they are also losing their vision. Usher type 2 individuals are born with moderate to severe hearing loss and then in the prime of their adolescent lives are told that they are losing their vision. Usher type 3, usually diagnosed during adolescence, leads to the slow loss of both hearing and vision. Life with Usher syndrome requires constant adaptation to the loss of vision, caused by retinitis pigmentosa. First is the loss of peripheral vision, when the rods are impacted resulting in the loss of night vision and the onset of tunnel vision, which shrinks over time to the size of a pinhole. Once the rods are gone, the cones atrophy. Color vision and the ability to read lips are lost, further impacting the hearing impaired Usher syndrome individual's ability to communicate with others. Often, central vision fades and the person is left completely blind. During this time--for which there is no prediction of how long the decline to total blindness will take--individuals with Usher syndrome are constantly adapting to remain aurally and visually connected. For the hearing loss, hearing aids, cochlear implants, American Sign Language, closed captioning, assistive listening devices, and tactile sign language are among the adaptive strategies used. For the vision loss, glasses, magnification, high contrast on computer screens, screen readers, audio descriptive devices, braille, canes, and guide dogs are used to compensate for the increasing blindness. To accelerate research, the Usher Syndrome Coalition is raising public knowledge by launching ``Usher Syndrome Awareness Day'' on the third Saturday in September. The theme centers on the autumnal equinox, which marks the start of days that contain more darkness than light--a powerful metaphor for the threat of Usher syndrome. This will be a global event that starts on one side of the world--Australia--and runs around the globe to the farthest point before the international dateline in Alaska. Like many, I too have a personal connection with Usher syndrome. A former congressional fellow in my office, Moira Shea, has Usher syndrome. She, with her guide dog by her side, took the Metro and came to work every day. In addition, she wore hearing aids, read lips, and overcame whatever adversity came her way. Today, Moira has lost her sight but not her vision--of finding treatments and cures for Usher syndrome so that no other generation has to go through what she and tens of thousands of other Americans have. With the acceleration of research, it may be possible for Moira and the thousands of others afflicted by this genetic disease to regain sight. The technology is there. The Casey Eye Institute at Oregon Health & Science University has started the first human study of gene therapy for Usher syndrome. I am proud that the first clinical trial for Usher syndrome is being conducted in the state that I am privileged to represent. I am committed to working with my colleagues to raise awareness about this devastating disease, and I applaud the hard work of the Usher Syndrome Coalition to make Usher syndrome research a higher priority at the National Institutes of Health.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, the Senate is being asked to approve the Intelligence authorization bill for fiscal year 2016 by unanimous consent. When this bill was reported by the Senate Intelligence Committee, I and other colleagues noted that it contained one provision that required further debate. This provision, section 603, would require Internet and communications companies to make reports to the government if they become aware of ``terrorist activity.'' Over the past 3 weeks a number of Internet companies have raised very valid concerns about this provision. In particular, they note that this provision is quite vague, and does not specify how these companies should know what is and is not terrorist activity. The Internet Association, which is comprised of dozens of leading technology companies, has warned that uncertainty about the meaning of this vague language will create ``an impossible compliance problem'' and lead to ``massive reporting of items that are not likely to be of material concern to public safety.'' That is obviously something that I think every Senator wants to avoid. Internet companies should not be subject to broad requirements to police the speech of their users. There is no question that tracking terrorist activity and preventing online terrorist recruitment should be top priorities for law enforcement and intelligence agencies. And leading technology companies certainly have a role to play here. The Director of the FBI testified this month that technology companies are ``pretty good about telling us'' when they see something of serious concern. But I haven't yet heard any law enforcement or intelligence agencies suggest that this provision will actually help catch terrorists, and I take the concerns that have been raised about its breadth and vagueness seriously. For these reasons, I object to this unanimous consent request. I look forward to working with my colleagues to revise or remove this provision so that the rest of the bill can proceed forward.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. The pie-in-the-sky insistence that the Affordable Care Act will be repealed and somehow we will not have the suffering I have just described--that is not reality. What we ought to do is reject this amendment to repeal the Affordable Care Act and then get back to work in a bipartisan way to strengthen the law. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I have spent much of my time in public service working to promote bipartisanship in health care. In fact, the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee is here. I think he may speak next. Our colleague from Tennessee Senator Alexander is a cosponsor of my comprehensive health care reform bill. So, for me, bipartisanship and health care policy is enormously important, and there are certainly plenty of ways in which Democrats and Republicans could be working together to strengthen the Affordable Care Act. Unfortunately, that does not seem to be on the menu either today or in this Congress. Today, instead of looking forward on health care in America, the Senate, on a transportation bill, will have a vote on whether to go backward on health care--backward to the days when health care in America was for the healthy and the wealthy. I specifically used those words because the moment you repeal the Affordable Care Act, millions of Americans lose protection against preexisting conditions. The moment that happens, if you are healthy and wealthy, no sweat, but for the millions who are aren't, they are back in that abyss where they go to bed at night worried that they may get wiped out the very next morning because they have a preexisting health condition. Protection for those individuals will be gone the moment the Senate votes. I hope the Senate will not vote for ending the Affordable Care Act this afternoon, but the moment it does, gone is that protection for preexisting conditions. Gone are the tax credits. These are opportunities for Americans to get a little bit of tax relief when hard-working families pay for health insurance--gone when we repeal the Affordable Care Act. Gone would be the protections that bar insurance companies from charging top dollar for rock-bottom coverage. Gone would be the protections for young adults. Right now, they can't be locked out of their parents' insurance plans. Gone would be the protection for individuals to make sure their insurance isn't canceled the moment they get sick. Once again, pregnancy could be considered a preexisting condition. So what I think this shows is that this debate is no longer about numbers on a page, bills we write, lots of charts, lots of graphs, lots of small print. But this isn't an abstraction, when we go back, as I have described, to the days when health care was for the healthy and the wealthy. More than 16 million Americans have gained health insurance coverage by virtue of the Affordable Care Act. Their health is on the line every single time there is a vote to repeal that law. So those are the consequences. I will wrap up because I see my good friend from Tennessee is here, as well as my Senator and my colleague from Utah. Both of them have joined me repeatedly in trying to promote bipartisan approaches on health care policy. I don't take a backseat to anybody in this body on working on health care policy in a bipartisan fashion. There is nothing that I think would be more valuable than to have Democrats and Republicans come together, not to talk about repealing this law but to find ways to strengthen it. There is not a law that has been passed that we can't strengthen. And having spoken with my friend from Utah and my friend from Tennessee repeatedly, I think they know I am serious about reaching out for common ground with respect to this issue.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 30 additional seconds.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following detailees, fellows, and interns on my Finance Committee staff be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the session: Sara Brundage, Jenni Greenlee, Daniel Hafner, Ernie Jolly, Jennifer Kay, Nolan Mayther, Alexandra Menardy, Tori Miller, J'Lill Mitchell, Nikesh Patel, Angelique Salizan, and Jay Weismuller.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, this week we are having a particularly important debate. Fortunately, it is a bipartisan debate. Great credit is owed to Senator Alexander and Senator Murray for their work on the Every Child Achieves Act. This bill is a significant piece of legislation because educational opportunity in America is a right which should start at birth and last a lifetime. As a parent, I know that mothers and fathers want their kids to be able to climb the economic ladder throughout their lives. That effort begins with a top-flight education. In my view, the Every Child Achieves Act is a good step toward expanding opportunity for students nationwide. It is built around the proposition that each school, each district, and each community is different. So rather than resorting to the sort of one-size-fits-all policies, this legislation focuses on trying to build on smart ideas, ideas with real promise that are actually going to make a big difference in classrooms. I am going to get to several amendments I want to highlight, but I wish to start by recognizing some vital components of the legislation I have strongly supported. The most important proposal I have worked on is one that focuses on raising graduation rates. This is one of the major economic challenges in my home State and many other States across the country. In Oregon, more than 100 high schools with high rates of poverty are blocked from tapping into Federal resources that can help important programs-- programs such as mentoring, before- and afterschool programs, programs where there is real evidence that they can make a difference in terms of helping these youngsters. This is not an issue just in my State. There are more than 2,000 of these schools nationwide. Because these schools are in a very difficult spot when it comes to securing Federal resources, too often the students suffer, and, in my view, the lack of resources for these schools often contributes to sky-high dropout rates. What I will discuss here briefly is how this proposal I have worked for is going to make the school improvement grants easier for middle and high schools to obtain and use to help these students, whom we want to see graduate and make their way to productive lives as citizens and workers. If a failing school has 40 percent or more low-income students, it would become eligible for assistance. These Federal dollars can be used, as I indicated, to fund programs that really work, such as extended learning programs, programs that would be available during the weekend or perhaps during the summer. The funds can be used to prevent dropouts and encourage students who have already dropped out to reenter the educational system. Schools can find other ways to help students stay at it and get through to graduation day. This will be a significant improvement over the status quo. What it does is provides support where it is needed most, and it will help us get more value out of scarce dollars to approach the challenge of helping students who are dropping out to get back in the system and graduate. I am also pleased to see the inclusion of several provisions championed by my colleague Senator Boxer to create more opportunities for students to enroll in afterschool programs and summer learning programs. In today's economy, with so many families walking on an economic tightrope--parents working long hours, multiple jobs--the fact is, there can't always be a parent around at 3 in the afternoon when kids get out of school or during the summer months. Senator Boxer really took the initiative for the 21st Century Community Learning Centers Program and the After School for America's Children Act. Both of them are worthy of support because they go to bat for students by providing extra learning opportunities for children both after school and in the summer. There are other key elements in this legislation, but the Senate ought to seize the opportunity in this debate to make some significant improvements. The Every Child Achieves Act can go a lot further to raise graduation rates. There are more than 1,200 high schools, serving more than 1.1 million kids, that are failing to graduate a third or more of their students each year. Too often, it is the minority youngsters who live in economic hardship who attend these schools. Senator Warren and I are on the same page with respect to the need to make it possible for more of the young people who go to these schools to get to graduation. Her amendment would help identify the struggling schools and provide some fresh approaches to help turn them around--a smart idea that I believe warrants bipartisan support. Finally, I have just a couple other approaches that I think are particularly valuable in terms of this debate and particularly how we can use the machinery of the Federal Government to play a constructive role in terms of education at the local level. Senator Booker and I have worked for an amendment that tries to help homeless children and foster youngsters graduate from high school. Once again--and we can see it in kind of what undergirds my remarks here-- the focus is on trying to create opportunity for young people who constantly are out there swimming upstream. The hurdles these youngsters face are obviously large. Many of them move frequently, constantly, from one place to another throughout their lives. As a result, it is hard for them to feel any connection to the school, to feel some sense of stability. What Senator Booker and I would seek to do is to make it easier for school districts and policymakers to try to help those school districts provide additional support for those youngsters who are homeless and those children who are in the foster care system. Finally, Senator Franken has offered an important proposal--the Student Non-Discrimination Act--that provides strongly needed protection for LGBT students. Schools ought to be safe and welcoming places that assist every child in getting ahead and thriving. If schools--particularly for the youngsters I have talked about in my remarks--aren't challenging enough, it is hard to imagine how much harder it gets for a youngster who faces harassment or discrimination because of their sexual orientation. The Franken amendment goes a long way to protect LGBT students and their friends at school and prevent them from feeling they have to skip class to avoid bullying. In wrapping up, the kinds of proposals I have outlined--starting with the effort to try to prevent students from dropping out and getting up the graduation rates--this is all about helping students get ahead through education, to expand opportunities for these young people throughout their lives through education. What the focus of the Senate ought to be is to make sure that no matter where a child lives or how much his or her parents earn or what obstacles they face--the message ought to be, here in the Senate, with every Democrat and every Republican, picking up on what Chairman Alexander and Senator Murray have said, that this bill will help to drive home the principle that hard work in school leads to success. I believe the Every Child Achieves Act is a good step in that direction. I urge my colleagues to support these important amendments. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, 2 weeks ago, the Supreme Court handed down a wonderful decision recognizing that all Americans have the right to marry the man or woman they love. It was a triumphant movement in the march toward justice, one I was happy to celebrate at home with a group of Oregonians who were truly elated. In my remarks that morning, I said: Love won and there is more to be done. So, today, along with 36 colleagues, I am introducing the Equal Dignity for Married Taxpayers Act of 2015. What this legislation does is it removes each gender-specific reference to marriage from the Tax Code. Now, in his opinion for the Court, Justice Kennedy pointed out the importance of providing equal dignity in the eyes of the law. Our legislation enshrines that equal dignity and respect in our Nation's tax laws by recognizing a new dawn of liberty for all Americans. In my view, on a more symbolic level, this legislation is one way to help close the door on an era when too many of our laws denied equality to the LGBTQ community. In my view, this is a particularly important step in the march toward justice. It is a straightforward way to cement the recognition that all Americans share certain unalienable rights--among them, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I was proud to vote against the Defense of Marriage Act in the Congress 20 years ago and fight measure 36 a decade ago in Oregon. I have always said--always said--that if you don't like gay marriage, don't get one. This is fundamentally an issue of justice and of liberty. I hope all Americans take pride in the wave of acceptance and equality that has rolled across our land and this decision embodies. This legislation now has 36 cosponsors. My hope is this body will support this proposal on a bipartisan basis. I look forward to working with our colleagues to take this next step. It is a step toward the arc of justice--the arc of justice that says that all of us--all of us-- have to be free. All of us should enjoy true and full equality for all Americans. I am very pleased 36 colleagues are joining me in this proposal this morning. I hope the Senate will pass it expeditiously on a bipartisan basis.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, 2 weeks ago, the Supreme Court handed down a wonderful decision recognizing that all Americans have the right to marry the man or woman they love. It was a triumphant movement in the march toward justice, one I was happy to celebrate at home with a group of Oregonians who were truly elated. In my remarks that morning, I said: Love won and there is more to be done. So, today, along with 36 colleagues, I am introducing the Equal Dignity for Married Taxpayers Act of 2015. What this legislation does is it removes each gender-specific reference to marriage from the Tax Code. Now, in his opinion for the Court, Justice Kennedy pointed out the importance of providing equal dignity in the eyes of the law. Our legislation enshrines that equal dignity and respect in our Nation's tax laws by recognizing a new dawn of liberty for all Americans. In my view, on a more symbolic level, this legislation is one way to help close the door on an era when too many of our laws denied equality to the LGBTQ community. In my view, this is a particularly important step in the march toward justice. It is a straightforward way to cement the recognition that all Americans share certain unalienable rights--among them, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I was proud to vote against the Defense of Marriage Act in the Congress 20 years ago and fight measure 36 a decade ago in Oregon. I have always said--always said--that if you don't like gay marriage, don't get one. This is fundamentally an issue of justice and of liberty. I hope all Americans take pride in the wave of acceptance and equality that has rolled across our land and this decision embodies. This legislation now has 36 cosponsors. My hope is this body will support this proposal on a bipartisan basis. I look forward to working with our colleagues to take this next step. It is a step toward the arc of justice--the arc of justice that says that all of us--all of us-- have to be free. All of us should enjoy true and full equality for all Americans. I am very pleased 36 colleagues are joining me in this proposal this morning. I hope the Senate will pass it expeditiously on a bipartisan basis.

Mr. WYDEN

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

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Offshore Reinsurance Tax Fairness Act. This bill closes a tax loophole that is being used by some U.S.-based hedge funds that set up insurance companies in places like Bermuda and the Cayman Islands where they aren't taxed and where their earnings are sheltered from U.S. taxes. Offshore businesses that reinsure risks and that invest in U.S. hedge funds create the potential for tax avoidance of hundreds of millions of dollars. Under these arrangements, a hedge fund or hedge fund investors make a capital investment in an offshore reinsurance company. The offshore reinsurance company then reinvests that capital, as well as premiums it receives, in the hedge fund. The owners of the reinsurer take the position that they are not taxed on corporate earnings until either those earnings are distributed, or the investors sell the corporation's stock at a gain reflecting those earnings. However, the hedge fund ``reinsurers'' are taking advantage of an exception to the passive foreign investment company--or PFIC--rules of U.S. tax law. The PFIC rules are designed to prevent U.S. taxpayers from delaying U.S. tax on investment income by holding investments through offshore corporations. However, the PFIC rules provide an exception for income derived from the active conduct of an insurance business. The exception applies to income derived from the active conduct of an insurance business by a corporation which is predominantly engaged in an insurance business and which would be subject to tax under Subchapter L if it were a domestic corporation. Current law does not prescribe how much insurance or reinsurance business the company must do to be considered predominantly engaged in an insurance business. Our investigative efforts show that some companies that are not legitimate insurance companies are taking advantage of this favorable tax treatment. About a year ago I asked the Treasury Department and IRS to issue guidance to shut down this abuse. And in April, Treasury and IRS issued regulations that take a first step at addressing this issue. However, while the guidance offers clarity in this area, a legislative fix is required to fully close this loophole. Therefore, today I am introducing the Offshore Reinsurance Tax Fairness Act to shut down this abuse once and for all. My bill would provide a bright-line test for determining whether a company is truly an insurance company for purposes of the exception to the PFIC rules. Under the new rule, to be considered an insurance company, the company's insurance liabilities must exceed 25 percent of its assets. If the company fails to qualify because it has 25 percent or less--but not less than 10 percent--in insurance liability assets, the company may still be predominantly engaged in the insurance business based on facts and circumstances. A company with less than 10 percent of insurance liability assets will not be considered an insurance company and, therefore, would be ineligible for the PFIC exception and subject to current taxation. The Offshore Reinsurance Tax Fairness Act will disqualify most of the hedge fund reinsurance companies that are taking advantage of the current law loophole, making them ineligible for the PFIC exception and stopping this abuse. I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact this important reform. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a technical explanation be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Oregon Wildlands Act to designate hundreds of miles of Oregon Rivers as Wild and Scenic, to protect thousands of acres of beautiful Oregon lands as National Recreation Areas, and to expand Wilderness for some of Oregon's most treasured areas. Oregon is a unique State and Oregonians take pride in the many natural treasures throughout our diverse landscape. From the Oregon Coast to the high desert of Eastern Oregon, our State boasts some of the most beautiful scenery, varied ecosystems, and unmatched outdoor recreation opportunities in the nation. Protecting these lands and rivers ensures that they will be treasured for generations to come. Oregon's rivers and landscapes are also home to threatened and endangered species, old-growth trees, and delicate ecosystems that deserve the highest protections. Enjoying the outdoors is in Oregonians' DNA--across the State, opportunities to get outside and enjoy Oregon's treasures bring in visitors from all over the world and make residents proud to call Oregon home. Protecting the lands and waters that support recreation is also an investment in our rural economies. In Oregon alone, the tourism industry employed more than 100,000 Oregonians during 2014 and generated $10.3 billion for the State's economy. Nationwide, outdoor recreation supports a $646 billion industry. Ensuring that visitors have pristine rivers to fish and float on, wilderness areas to hike in, and recreation areas to explore is a guaranteed way to make certain that visitors will return year after year. All told, the bill designates approximately 118,000 acres of Recreation Areas, approximately 250 miles of Wild and Scenic Rivers, and over 86,600 acres of Wilderness. Each area offers significant opportunities for recreation and ecosystem protections. The protections in this bill highlight some of Oregon's most environmentally significant areas, such as Devil's Staircase near the Oregon Coast. Devil's Staircase is the epitome of Wilderness in Oregon--it is rugged, pristine, and remote, with hikers following elk and deer trails to navigate the rugged terrain. My bill would protect approximately 30,540 acres as wilderness and 14.6 miles of Wasson Creek and Franklin Creek, which run through the Devil's Staircase area as Wild and Scenic Rivers. Devil's Staircase is home to the most remarkable old-growth forest on Oregon's Coast Range, where giant Douglas-fir, cedar, and hemlock support threatened and endangered species habitat, such as marbled murrelets and Northern Spotted Owls. My proposal would expand the Wild Rogue Wilderness by approximately 56,100 acres and include an additional 125 miles to the incomparable Wild and Scenic Rogue River. The Rogue is world-renowned as a premier recreation destination for rafting and fishing, with its free flowing waters starting at Oregon's Crater Lake National Park and emptying into the Pacific Ocean. Along the way, the Rogue River flows through a diverse landscape and its cold waters are the perfect habitat for salmon--the river is home to runs of Coho, spring and fall Chinook, and winter and summer Steelhead. By protecting the Rogue River and its tributaries we are protecting the fish and wildlife that depend on clean, healthy water. Additionally, the Wilderness expansion would protect the habitat for bald eagles, osprey, spotted owls, bear, elk, and cougars. In addition, my proposal designates approximately 35.2 miles of the Elk River and 21.3 miles of the Molalla River as a new recreational, scenic, and wild rivers, and withdraws 19 miles of the Chetco River, one of the most endangered rivers in the country, from mineral development. By protecting hundreds of miles of Wild and Scenic Rivers, as well as the lands that surround those rivers, my proposal ensures that important wildlife habitat can thrive, that Oregon's treasured recreation destinations remain scenic and pristine, and that Oregonians continue to have clean sources of drinking water. I am pleased to be joined on this bill by my colleague from Oregon Senator Jeff Merkley who has worked closely with me over the years to protect Oregon's natural treasures.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Offshore Reinsurance Tax Fairness Act. This bill closes a tax loophole that is being used by some U.S.-based hedge funds that set up insurance companies in places like Bermuda and the Cayman Islands where they aren't taxed and where their earnings are sheltered from U.S. taxes. Offshore businesses that reinsure risks and that invest in U.S. hedge funds create the potential for tax avoidance of hundreds of millions of dollars. Under these arrangements, a hedge fund or hedge fund investors make a capital investment in an offshore reinsurance company. The offshore reinsurance company then reinvests that capital, as well as premiums it receives, in the hedge fund. The owners of the reinsurer take the position that they are not taxed on corporate earnings until either those earnings are distributed, or the investors sell the corporation's stock at a gain reflecting those earnings. However, the hedge fund ``reinsurers'' are taking advantage of an exception to the passive foreign investment company--or PFIC--rules of U.S. tax law. The PFIC rules are designed to prevent U.S. taxpayers from delaying U.S. tax on investment income by holding investments through offshore corporations. However, the PFIC rules provide an exception for income derived from the active conduct of an insurance business. The exception applies to income derived from the active conduct of an insurance business by a corporation which is predominantly engaged in an insurance business and which would be subject to tax under Subchapter L if it were a domestic corporation. Current law does not prescribe how much insurance or reinsurance business the company must do to be considered predominantly engaged in an insurance business. Our investigative efforts show that some companies that are not legitimate insurance companies are taking advantage of this favorable tax treatment. About a year ago I asked the Treasury Department and IRS to issue guidance to shut down this abuse. And in April, Treasury and IRS issued regulations that take a first step at addressing this issue. However, while the guidance offers clarity in this area, a legislative fix is required to fully close this loophole. Therefore, today I am introducing the Offshore Reinsurance Tax Fairness Act to shut down this abuse once and for all. My bill would provide a bright-line test for determining whether a company is truly an insurance company for purposes of the exception to the PFIC rules. Under the new rule, to be considered an insurance company, the company's insurance liabilities must exceed 25 percent of its assets. If the company fails to qualify because it has 25 percent or less--but not less than 10 percent--in insurance liability assets, the company may still be predominantly engaged in the insurance business based on facts and circumstances. A company with less than 10 percent of insurance liability assets will not be considered an insurance company and, therefore, would be ineligible for the PFIC exception and subject to current taxation. The Offshore Reinsurance Tax Fairness Act will disqualify most of the hedge fund reinsurance companies that are taking advantage of the current law loophole, making them ineligible for the PFIC exception and stopping this abuse. I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact this important reform. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a technical explanation be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Oregon Wildlands Act to designate hundreds of miles of Oregon Rivers as Wild and Scenic, to protect thousands of acres of beautiful Oregon lands as National Recreation Areas, and to expand Wilderness for some of Oregon's most treasured areas. Oregon is a unique State and Oregonians take pride in the many natural treasures throughout our diverse landscape. From the Oregon Coast to the high desert of Eastern Oregon, our State boasts some of the most beautiful scenery, varied ecosystems, and unmatched outdoor recreation opportunities in the nation. Protecting these lands and rivers ensures that they will be treasured for generations to come. Oregon's rivers and landscapes are also home to threatened and endangered species, old-growth trees, and delicate ecosystems that deserve the highest protections. Enjoying the outdoors is in Oregonians' DNA--across the State, opportunities to get outside and enjoy Oregon's treasures bring in visitors from all over the world and make residents proud to call Oregon home. Protecting the lands and waters that support recreation is also an investment in our rural economies. In Oregon alone, the tourism industry employed more than 100,000 Oregonians during 2014 and generated $10.3 billion for the State's economy. Nationwide, outdoor recreation supports a $646 billion industry. Ensuring that visitors have pristine rivers to fish and float on, wilderness areas to hike in, and recreation areas to explore is a guaranteed way to make certain that visitors will return year after year. All told, the bill designates approximately 118,000 acres of Recreation Areas, approximately 250 miles of Wild and Scenic Rivers, and over 86,600 acres of Wilderness. Each area offers significant opportunities for recreation and ecosystem protections. The protections in this bill highlight some of Oregon's most environmentally significant areas, such as Devil's Staircase near the Oregon Coast. Devil's Staircase is the epitome of Wilderness in Oregon--it is rugged, pristine, and remote, with hikers following elk and deer trails to navigate the rugged terrain. My bill would protect approximately 30,540 acres as wilderness and 14.6 miles of Wasson Creek and Franklin Creek, which run through the Devil's Staircase area as Wild and Scenic Rivers. Devil's Staircase is home to the most remarkable old-growth forest on Oregon's Coast Range, where giant Douglas-fir, cedar, and hemlock support threatened and endangered species habitat, such as marbled murrelets and Northern Spotted Owls. My proposal would expand the Wild Rogue Wilderness by approximately 56,100 acres and include an additional 125 miles to the incomparable Wild and Scenic Rogue River. The Rogue is world-renowned as a premier recreation destination for rafting and fishing, with its free flowing waters starting at Oregon's Crater Lake National Park and emptying into the Pacific Ocean. Along the way, the Rogue River flows through a diverse landscape and its cold waters are the perfect habitat for salmon--the river is home to runs of Coho, spring and fall Chinook, and winter and summer Steelhead. By protecting the Rogue River and its tributaries we are protecting the fish and wildlife that depend on clean, healthy water. Additionally, the Wilderness expansion would protect the habitat for bald eagles, osprey, spotted owls, bear, elk, and cougars. In addition, my proposal designates approximately 35.2 miles of the Elk River and 21.3 miles of the Molalla River as a new recreational, scenic, and wild rivers, and withdraws 19 miles of the Chetco River, one of the most endangered rivers in the country, from mineral development. By protecting hundreds of miles of Wild and Scenic Rivers, as well as the lands that surround those rivers, my proposal ensures that important wildlife habitat can thrive, that Oregon's treasured recreation destinations remain scenic and pristine, and that Oregonians continue to have clean sources of drinking water. I am pleased to be joined on this bill by my colleague from Oregon Senator Jeff Merkley who has worked closely with me over the years to protect Oregon's natural treasures.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, before he leaves the floor, let me just commend the Senator from Rhode Island. He has made a number of important points this afternoon, but I am particularly pleased my colleague has laid out, in such a thoughtful way, the implications of the Pope's encyclical. This was very important as a major new focus of the debate, and I really commend my colleague. I suspect we are now on 101 or 102--oh, 104. I was there for 100, so I must have missed one along the way. But I commend my colleague and thank him for his commitment. He knows I share many of his views with respect to creating a fresh set of approaches to deal with this climate change question, and I look forward to working with him.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today the Senate is taking major steps toward a new, more progressive trade policy that will shut the door on the 1990s North American Free Trade Agreement once and for all. One of the major ways this overall package accomplishes this goal is by kicking our trade enforcement into high gear. Later today, the Senate is going to vote to go to conference with the House on strong bipartisan legislation that was passed by the Chamber only a few weeks ago by a vote of 78 to 20. It has long been my view that vigorous enforcement of our trade laws must be at the forefront of any modern approach to trade at this unique time in history. One of the first questions many citizens ask is, I hear there is talk in Washington, DC, about passing a new trade law. How about first enforcing the laws that are on the books? This has been an area I long have sought to change, and we are beginning to do this with this legislation and I want to describe it. For me, this goes back to the days when I chaired the Senate's Subcommittee on International Trade and Competitiveness. We saw such widespread cheating, such widespread flouting of our trade laws, my staff and I set up a sting operation. We set up a sting operation to catch the cheats; in effect, almost inviting these people to try to use a Web site to evade the laws. They came out of nowhere because they said: Hey, cheating has gotten pretty easy. Let's sign up. And we caught a lot of people. So we said, from that point on, that we were going to make sure any new trade legislation took, right at the center, an approach that would protect hard-working Americans from the misdeeds of trade cheats. In fact, the core of the bipartisan legislation that heads into conference is a jobs bill--a jobs bill that will protect American workers and our exporters from those kinds of rip-offs by those who would flout the trade laws. The fact is, when you finally get tough enforcement of our trade laws, it is a jobs bill--a true jobs bill--because you are doing a better job of enforcing the laws that protect the good-paying jobs of American workers. I guess some people think we are going to get that tougher enforcement by osmosis. We are going to get it because we are going to pass a law, starting today with the conference agreement that is going to have real teeth in it--real teeth in it--to enforce our trade laws. Foreign companies and nations employ a whole host of complicated schemes and shadowy tactics to break the trade rules, and they bully American businesses and undercut our workers. So what we said in the Finance Committee, on a bipartisan basis, is the name of the game will be to stay out in front of these unfair trade practices that cost our workers good-paying jobs. My colleagues and I believe the Senate has offered now the right plan to fight back against the trade cheats and protect American jobs and protect our companies from abuse. It really starts with what is called the ENFORCE Act, which is a proposal I first offered years ago that will give our Customs agency more tools to crack down on the cheaters. Then, we have a bipartisan, bicameral agreement on the need for an unfair trade alert. That is another major upgrade that responds to what we heard companies and labor folks say again and again. What they would say is that trade enforcement laws get there too late. They get there too late. The plant is closed, the jobs are gone, the hopes and dreams of working families are shattered. So what we said is we are going to start using some of the data and the information we have to have a real trade alert so we can spot what is coming up and get that information to our communities and our working families and our companies to protect our workers. So this unfair trade alert is another major upgrade in how we tackle enforcing our trade laws. My view is that any bill that comes out of that enforcement conference, the Customs conference, needs to reflect important American priorities, and that should certainly include smart protection of our environmental treasures. When our trade agreements establish rules on environmental protection, they have to be enforced with the same vigor as the rules that knock down barriers for businesses overseas. Our colleague from Colorado Senator Bennet offered, in my view, a very constructive proposal that is going to accomplish this important goal. It was overwhelmingly agreed to by the Committee on Finance and passed by the Senate, and I would like to note that much of the good work done by Senator Bennet mirrors what my colleague in the other body, Congressman Blumenauer, is doing on this issue as well. It is my view--and why it was important to hear from Senator Whitehouse--that climate change is one of the premier challenges of our time. It is critical to make sure this enforcement package sends the right message on environmental issues. Whether the issue at hand is climate change, fisheries or conservation, this package--the package we are going to be dealing with in the Customs conference--strikes the right balance for the environment. I also want to take a moment to build on what I discussed yesterday with respect to the Democratic priorities that my colleagues and I are going to fight for in conference. This stems from an important point made by our colleague from North Dakota Senator Heitkamp, who said we really need to go into this Customs conference with some markers--some strong markers that lay out a path for some of our priorities with respect to enforcing the Customs law. So after the pro-trade Democrats met on Monday night, I talked with Chairman Ryan with respect to these issues. We intend to champion provisions by Senator Shaheen which will help our small businesses take full advantage of trade. A lot of people say, oh, trade bills are for the big guys; the big guys are the ones who are going to benefit. I have always thought big guys can take care of themselves. They have lots of people to stand up for them. But what Senator Shaheen is saying--and it is particularly important in my home State, where we have mostly small businesses. Senator Shaheen is saying she is going to make sure, as part of the enforcement efforts, we beef up the effort to help small businesses, particularly at the State level--not at the Federal level, at the State level--promote these efforts to have more markets for our small businesses in the export field. In addition to Senator Shaheen's amendment, as far as those Customs markers are concerned, we are also going to make the environmental protection provisions I just described authored by Senator Bennet a priority and Senator Cantwell's trade enforcement trust fund. I am very hopeful about the trade enforcement trust fund as well. Suffice it to say, there is interest on both sides of the aisle because there is an awareness that, again, we can have some trade laws, but we are going to need some resources in order to make sure they are implemented. So I think that trade enforcement trust fund is another very important priority, and it is one that the pro-trade Democrats have said would be part of our short list in terms of our Customs markers. As I noted, when I have town meetings at home--I have had more than 730 of them and am going to have more of them this upcoming week--I do find people say that everybody in Washington talks about new laws, new proposals, trade ideas: Enforce the laws on the books first. It has been too hard--too hard in the past--for our businesses, particularly our small businesses, to get the enforcement that matters, enforcement with teeth, enforcement that serves as a real deterrent to cheating. So this legislation is our chance to demonstrate that strengthening trade enforcement--enforcement of the trade laws--will now be an integral part of a new modern approach to trade, an approach that says we are not part of the 1990s on trade, where nobody had Web sites and iPhones and the like. We have a modern trade policy with the centerpiece enforcing our trade laws. Our policies are going to give America's trade enforcers the tools they need to fight on behalf of American jobs and American workers and stop the trade cheats who seek to undercut them. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote yes later today on the motion to send the enforcement bill to conference and work on a bipartisan basis, as we did in the Finance Committee, to put strong trade enforcement legislation on the President's desk. Now, I would also like to briefly make some remarks on the trade adjustment assistance package. As we have said, later today, the Senate is going to take a series of votes that again speak to how we kick off a new progressive era in trade policy that closes the books on the trade ideas of the 1990s once and for all. Once again, a key part of that effort is protecting our workers and ensuring that more trade means everybody has an opportunity to get ahead. That is why the package of legislation under debate expands and extends the support system for America's workers called trade adjustment assistance. Now, this program dates back to the days of President Kennedy. President Kennedy, during his push for the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, called it ``a program to afford time for American initiative, American adaptability and American resiliency to assert themselves.'' Since then, this program has been extended by Republican and Democratic Presidents. The program is now a lifeline for more than 100,000 Americans, including 3,000 Oregonians who receive job training and financial support. The heart of it is to provide a springboard to new opportunities, and it guarantees that workers and their families don't get knocked off stride when times are tough. In my view, it is a core element of what I call trade done right. As I noted yesterday, Tim Nesbitt, former past president of the Oregon AFL-CIO, essentially said our legislation was a blueprint for trade done right. Now, for 1\1/2\ years, the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program has been running at reduced strength. But that is going to change once this legislation becomes law. The funding for trade adjustment assistance goes back up to a level that will cover everybody who qualifies. Once again, service workers will be eligible for the program because in today's economy they are facing competition from overseas as well. Trade adjustment assistance would take into account competition from anywhere in the world, not just from our trade agreement partners. These are significant improvements that I will tell the Presiding Officer and colleagues I fought very hard for in what were negotiations that really lasted well over 6 months with Chairman Hatch and Chairman Ryan. I believe these changes are going to make a big difference for workers across our Nation who fall on tough times. If China manages to lure a manufacturer away from the United States, for example, now those workers will be covered. They will have a chance to learn new skills and find a job that pays good wages, and they will not have to worry about whether the bills will get paid or if they are going to have food on their table. Along with trade adjustment assistance, this legislation will reinstate the health coverage tax credit that expired at the end of last year. The majority of workers in this country--tens of millions of middle-class people and their families--get health insurance through their employer. The health coverage tax credit guarantees that workers and families affected by trade are going to still be able to see their doctor. If they get sick or suffer an injury, they aren't going to face colossal medical bills or the threat of bankruptcy. They get protection, and they get it until they are back on their feet. In the process of bringing this legislation together, my friend and colleague on the Finance Committee Senator Brown offered a proposal that goes a long way, in my view, to strengthening our enforcement of key trade laws. It is called the Leveling the Playing Field Act. I urge the Senate majority leader to include this important legislation in the TAA bill, both because it is a good policy and it is a sign that both parties are working on issues that are logical bipartisan priorities. Leveling the playing field--and I can say this at this point in the debate. If we look at the Senate Finance Committee files, leveling the playing field was a top priority for those in the unions--the steel unions and others--and it was also a top priority for their companies. So having this policy in trade adjustment assistance is exactly the kind of bipartisan work the American people want done--business, labor, Democrats, Republicans--a strong record of evidence as to why it is needed. This legislation is going to be the difference between steelworkers and paper workers being on the job or being laid off because it ensures that the remedies of trade law--what is called countervailing duty law, anti-dumping law--is going to be available to workers and their companies earlier and in a more comprehensive way. It is going to protect jobs, which is a priority of both political parties. I made mention how important this was to me. My first hearing--my first hearing when I became chairman of the Finance Committee's trade subcommittee--was on trade enforcement. So I could have chosen a lot of topics. We could have talked about exports, hugely important to my State. We could have talked about the fact that the trade laws haven't kept up with the digital age, hugely important to my State. I said my first hearing was going to be on trade enforcement. My good friend from United Steelworkers, Leo Gerard, together with the U.S. Steel chairman, Mario Longhi, spoke at length about how American workers wanted to see the Senate and the Finance Committee stand up for them and finally fix the shortcomings in our trade remedy laws. That is what we have done now. Getting behind Sherrod Brown's proposal to strengthen our trade laws, to stop unfair trade so foreign companies do not undercut American workers and manufacturers ought to be an American priority--a red, white, and blue priority, a priority for every Member of this body. I am proud to have worked with Senator Brown on this important issue. I thank him for the fact that he has brought this up again and again and again. I said quite some time ago that we weren't going to let this package become law without the Leveling the Playing Field Act authored by Senator Brown at the outset. That is going to be the case, and I thank him for his work. The three programs--the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program, the health coverage tax credit, Senator Brown's Leveling the Playing Field Act--are now moving through the Senate alongside legislation that creates new economic opportunities for impoverished countries in Africa and other places around the world. This trade package will extend the biggest of these programs, the African Growth and Opportunity Act--what is called AGOA--for 10 years. I am a strong believer in AGOA. It works for our country, it works for Africa, and it builds a stronger economic future for so many around the world. We worked hard again on a bipartisan basis in the Finance Committee to find ways to strengthen AGOA. That was the point of our hearing, to find ways to strengthen it, extend it for another decade, and the committee came together on a bipartisan basis to make smart improvements. Once again, we see the value of a progressive trade policy. Two of our very outstanding colleagues--my colleague Senator Coons on this side of the aisle and our friend Senator Isakson on the other side of the aisle--are always working in a bipartisan way, pointing out that this is what our country is all about, and certainly creating opportunities for impoverished parts of the world is a core American priority. Hearts and minds around the world are hoping we will have this kind of leadership. I will close, and I think this will be my last comment before the vote. It is my view that for all who want to see trade done right, for all who want American workers to thrive in the 21st century, getting behind these key programs is an ideal way to do it. By supporting this legislation, the Congress reaffirms what President Kennedy really rhapsodized over half a century ago: You get behind these programs, and it reaffirms America's commitment to American initiative, to adaptability, and resiliency. I encourage all of my colleagues to vote yes to support these important programs when we vote later today. I yield the floor.