Ron Wyden

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, over the last several weeks on the floor of both this body and the House, we have heard Members, colleagues, say they are tired of the old 1990s North American Free Trade Agreement playbook on trade. They are concerned that the package which is once again before the Senate is more of the same. Here is my message on why this legislation needs to move forward. If you believe those policies of the 1990s failed to protect American workers and strengthen our economy, this is our chance to set a new course. This is our chance to put in place higher standards in global trade on matters such as labor rights and environmental protection, to shine some real sunlight on trade agreements and ensure that our country writes the rules of the road. The fact is, in 2015, globalization is a reality. The choice is whether to sit back and allow globalization to push and pull on our economy until in ways dictated by countries in China. So our choice is either to move now and get into the center of the ring and fight for a stronger economic future, protect our workers and promote our values, or remain tethered to many of those old policies of the 1990s. I say to the Senate today: If you believe, like me, that it is time once and for all to close the books on the North American free-trade era in trade, this legislation deserves your support. In my hometown paper recently, there was an opinion article, and it stated that this trade bill lays out ``a hard-and-fast checklist for the TPP, holding the Obama administration accountable for meeting its goals and conditions.'' The article goes on to say that this legislation ``will reorient priorities and improve the process for the TPP and other trade agreements in the future.'' I completely agree with that view, but the Senate doesn't have to take my word for it. Those are the words of Tim Nesbitt, the past president of the Oregon AFL-CIO, who has disagreed with me on trade often over the years. Yet now he states that this legislation we will vote on today provides a fresh opportunity for trade done right. When it comes to core American values--labor rights, environmental protection, and human rights--this legislation raises the bar and demands more from our trade negotiators than ever before. We have talked a lot about a race to the bottom. My view is that if our country doesn't fight to protect worker rights and the environment with tough, enforceable trade agreements, those priorities are going to wither away. China is certainly not going to take up the banner for American values in trade. So if you believe America should stop a race to the bottom on labor rights, environmental safeguards, and human rights, this legislation is our chance to lift up global standards. I want to talk for a moment about the economic potential of this legislation. What we all understand we need to do is make things here, grow things here, add value to them here, and then ship them somewhere. My State knows how to make this happen, and so do many others. About one out of five jobs in Oregon depends on international trade. Almost 90 percent of them are small and medium sized. And what we know is that in many instances those jobs pay better. The fact is, if our farmers want to sell their products in Japan--and this is true of agriculture all over America. A lot of our farmers face average tariffs of 40 percent. That is right. If you want to export some jam to Vietnam, it will be marked up by 90 percent. If you want to sell a bottle of wine--and we have wine growers with prosperous businesses all over the country--they have to fork over 50 percent of the value to the government. So if we believe other countries should open their markets to American exports, like the U.S. is open to theirs, this is our chance to break down the tariffs and other barriers. I want to touch for a moment again on how different this is than the 1990s. In the 1990s, nobody could have imagined the right tools to protect the modern Internet. Twenty-five years ago, it was impossible to make a living by setting up a business online. A cell phone was as big as a brick. In fact, the NAFTA negotiations began a year before the first Web site was set up. Today, Internet commerce is at the heart of our economy. If we want to cement America's leadership in the digital economy, this is our chance to vote for trade policies that will protect a free and open Internet. Now, I wish to mention again, apropos of how different this is, that I have felt for some time that critics of past trade policy have been spot on with respect to a lot of this secrecy which is just gratuitous. If we believe deeply in trade, as Chairman Hatch and I do, and want more of it, why should we have all this unnecessary secrecy which just makes people cynical about trade? So we have brought sunshine to this trade debate in a way that is unprecedented. For the first time, before the President can sign a deal, the full text has to be released to the public for 60 days. Before we can have votes in the other body and in the Senate, there will be no fewer than 4 months where people can open a proposed trade deal and read it for themselves. So picture that: For 4 months, the American people will have in their hands--starting with the TPP--what the trade agreement is all about. That is simply unprecedented. I wish to close the question of how we are going to proceed from here. This has obviously been a complicated piece of legislation. I appreciate the Senate and House leaders have committed to moving trade adjustment assistance alongside trade promotion authority as well as a proposal that originated with Senator Brown to strengthen our critically important trade enforcement laws. While the goal of enacting trade policies is a tool to give all Americans a chance to get ahead, trade adjustment assistance is an absolute must-pass bill, and I am confident it is going to get through Congress to the President's desk. That bill includes the vitally important program also that creates new opportunities for impoverished nations in Africa. The Customs enforcement bill is also moving forward on a bipartisan basis, and there is important work there to be done. The Senate must resolve differences in the enforcement bill with the other body. I wish to make it clear this morning that I expect that conference to respect Democratic priorities. My Democratic colleagues and I will be laying down markers on several of our top priorities. I discussed those priorities with Chairman Ryan last night. Those priorities include provisions in the Senate bill championed by Senator Shaheen to help our small businesses, provisions authored by Senator Bennet to address enforcement environmental laws, and Senator Cantwell's important trade enforcement trust fund. In my view, the Congress has an opportunity in this legislation to show it can work in a bipartisan way to take on one of the premier economic challenges of our time. Our job is to get past the policies of the 1990s and move toward getting trade done right. Colleagues, let's pry open foreign markets and send more of our exports abroad. Let's fight for the American brand and the Oregon brand against the trade chiefs and the bad actors who are blocking our way, and let's raise the bar for American values and open our trade policies to sunlight. I urge all in the Senate to vote yes on cloture today and to support this package as it advances this week. In effect, we get three important bills done this week and set in motion. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to further protect American's privacy, while providing clear guidance for Federal law enforcement for information collection using the newest technologies. I am sure my colleagues recall recent reports, from just a few weeks ago, detailing the FBI's use of secret planes to spy on people in dozens of cities without a warrant. These reports troubled both my colleagues and me, and left unclear exactly when the government thinks it is okay to surveil people from the air. As I have stressed many times before, the American public deserves to know the laws that the government relies on to surveil people, and the limits of those laws. And that's what this bill sets out to do. Now, drafting legislation in an area where technology is advancing rapidly and so many policy issues intersect, is a very difficult task. But I am confident that the Protecting Individuals From Mass Aerial Surveillance Act of 2015 reflects feedback from several stakeholders, experts and civil liberties groups, and provides the government the tools it needs to keep us safe without sacrificing our civil liberties. This bill would generally prohibit federal aerial surveillance without a warrant, but with several exceptions. It would allow the government to aerially surveil to protect people from disasters, terrorist attacks, entry of illegal substances at national borders, and other emergency situations. In addition, it would allow for government agencies to survey wildlife and conduct research by use of aerial vehicles, in order to ensure that habitats are preserved and environmental risks are assessed properly. This bill also would prohibit the government from identifying people that happen to appear in aerial surveillance, unless it has probable cause to believe those people have committed specific crimes. All information gathered in violation of the bill would be barred admission as evidence in any court of law, and the bill would also prohibit private operators of aerial vehicles from being proxies for unlawful government surveillance. I want to stress that we cannot stand to wait much longer to pass sensible limits on a type of surveillance whose technical capabilities are advancing rapidly. With the proliferation of drones in US airspace, and the numbers expected to increase by the thousands in the following few years, there is a real concern that the law has not been keeping up with technical advancements. And drones are not the only concern--use of planes and helicopters equipped with modern surveillance equipment make the technological landscape an incredibly dynamic one. That's why this bill today would remain technology neutral and apply to both manned and unmanned aerial vehicles. To my fellow colleagues, I strongly believe that this bill strikes the proper balance between allowing for aerial surveillance and protecting individual privacy. I am glad to have received help and feedback from the Center for Democracy and Technology, SOAR Oregon--a leading voice in Oregon's UAV industry, the Small UAV Coalition, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the ACLU, and other experts. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this bill and offering their feedback. At this time, I would like to ask that this statement be entered into the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to further protect American's privacy, while providing clear guidance for Federal law enforcement for information collection using the newest technologies. I am sure my colleagues recall recent reports, from just a few weeks ago, detailing the FBI's use of secret planes to spy on people in dozens of cities without a warrant. These reports troubled both my colleagues and me, and left unclear exactly when the government thinks it is okay to surveil people from the air. As I have stressed many times before, the American public deserves to know the laws that the government relies on to surveil people, and the limits of those laws. And that's what this bill sets out to do. Now, drafting legislation in an area where technology is advancing rapidly and so many policy issues intersect, is a very difficult task. But I am confident that the Protecting Individuals From Mass Aerial Surveillance Act of 2015 reflects feedback from several stakeholders, experts and civil liberties groups, and provides the government the tools it needs to keep us safe without sacrificing our civil liberties. This bill would generally prohibit federal aerial surveillance without a warrant, but with several exceptions. It would allow the government to aerially surveil to protect people from disasters, terrorist attacks, entry of illegal substances at national borders, and other emergency situations. In addition, it would allow for government agencies to survey wildlife and conduct research by use of aerial vehicles, in order to ensure that habitats are preserved and environmental risks are assessed properly. This bill also would prohibit the government from identifying people that happen to appear in aerial surveillance, unless it has probable cause to believe those people have committed specific crimes. All information gathered in violation of the bill would be barred admission as evidence in any court of law, and the bill would also prohibit private operators of aerial vehicles from being proxies for unlawful government surveillance. I want to stress that we cannot stand to wait much longer to pass sensible limits on a type of surveillance whose technical capabilities are advancing rapidly. With the proliferation of drones in US airspace, and the numbers expected to increase by the thousands in the following few years, there is a real concern that the law has not been keeping up with technical advancements. And drones are not the only concern--use of planes and helicopters equipped with modern surveillance equipment make the technological landscape an incredibly dynamic one. That's why this bill today would remain technology neutral and apply to both manned and unmanned aerial vehicles. To my fellow colleagues, I strongly believe that this bill strikes the proper balance between allowing for aerial surveillance and protecting individual privacy. I am glad to have received help and feedback from the Center for Democracy and Technology, SOAR Oregon--a leading voice in Oregon's UAV industry, the Small UAV Coalition, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the ACLU, and other experts. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this bill and offering their feedback. At this time, I would like to ask that this statement be entered into the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I wish to address events from the last several days, both of which have the potential to reshape the way the American people use the Internet for communication and commerce. The first came last week when the other body voted on a bipartisan basis to permanently extend the Internet Tax Freedom Act. I wrote that law, which is commonly known as ITFA, along with former Congressman Chris Cox, in 1998. The Internet Tax Freedom Act is one of the most popular tax policies in the country, and I believe it is past time for the Senate to follow the House's lead and send a permanent extension to the President's desk. The second important matter came up yesterday, when a bill called the Remote Transaction Parity Act was introduced in the other body. What this proposal offers is a brand-new national sales tax managed by a privatizing, tax-collecting bureaucracy that not a single voter in America has approved. I see this online tax hike as a major threat to the Internet that has flourished under the bipartisan Internet Tax Freedom Act. I want to address both of these issues briefly today, beginning with the importance of the permanent Internet Tax Freedom law. Ever since Congress passed it, it has been an essential tool in helping the Internet grow unencumbered by discriminatory taxation. It prohibits the kind of discriminatory taxes that some in Congress are too fond of; the kind of taxes that I believe will hurt innovation and punish the millions of citizens and businesses that use and depend on the Internet each day. The Internet Tax Freedom Act has saved families in Oregon and across America hundreds of dollars a year. That is because without the law, access to the Internet would likely be subject to the same level of punishing taxation that is currently imposed on cigarettes and alcohol. We already see that with wireless services not protected by the Internet Tax Freedom Act, and this area does involve onerous taxes. Inflicting those taxes on Internet access is a burden the Senate absolutely should not heap on the American people. Unfortunately, Congress has become too reliant on stop-and-go governing, so the Internet Tax Freedom Act has been extended several times on a temporary basis. Some Members in the Senate and House want to tie the Internet Tax Freedom Act, which saves people money, to a controversial proposal that will drive up the cost of using the Internet the way Americans do today, and that is where the second issue I would like to address comes in. The House proposal, called the Remote Transaction Parity Act, has taken a variety of different forms over the years. An older version that died in Congress was called the Marketplace Fairness Act. The idea used to be to turn every business that operated online--big or small-- into a tax collector for the thousands of tax jurisdictions across the country. With every new version of this online tax hike bill, we would see a new set of problems crop up. Now the proposal has become even bigger and more unwieldy. The new proposal coming from the other body would build an enormous, privatized, tax-collecting bureaucracy, and that new bureaucracy would take a big cut of every online sale before a single dime of sales tax gets distributed back to the States or local communities. I will take a minute and talk about how this hurts my home State. My home State has no sales tax, but under this proposal, this murky tax- collecting middle man is going to get involved anytime somebody in Virginia, Michigan or California makes a purchase online from an Oregon company. This proposal would unfairly siphon money away from Oregon. Yet Oregonians will get nothing in return from these newly empowered national tax collectors. In effect, there would be a new national sales tax overseen by a privatized middle man, and that raises serious questions about whether taxpayer dollars should be going to a for- profit tax collector. It could put sensitive data about businesses and their customers into the crosshairs of hackers and criminals. That would be just about the biggest Federal intrusion into State commerce in a long time. The online tax bill also creates a major new hurdle for small businesses that want to find consumers online. That would be a particularly harsh blow to companies in rural America, rural Oregon, and elsewhere. It would suddenly be a whole lot harder to compete with a retailer in a crowded city when the cost of doing business online takes a jump. Finally, it takes a fundamentally tilted playing field against U.S. employers, and, in effect, makes those employers pay a national sales tax. It creates a fundamentally tilted playing field. The Internet spans national borders, but sellers from China, Canada, and Europe will not and cannot be subject to this tax, and under this approach, they will profit at the expense of the American consumer and American worker. In my view, we have at hand now two radically different pieces of legislation. The first has been on the books now for well over a decade and has been hugely valuable in terms of innovation, choice, and consumers. That is the permanent Internet Tax Freedom Act, in effect taking what we have had for over a decade and making it permanent. With the permanent approach, we lower costs for consumers and protect the Internet as a bulwark for free speech and commerce, promoting American companies and American ideals. So that is approach No. 1--making permanent legislation that has worked since 1998. The second approach is the Remote Transaction Parity Act, which would raise costs for Americans, hurt small and rural businesses, and punish States such as Oregon that have kept taxes low. In my view, it would be legislative malpractice to tie these two approaches together. The path forward for the U.S. Senate should be very clear; that is, to take the permanent Internet Tax Freedom Act that has sailed through the House and, with the ball in our court, pass it here. I believe that a permanent law protecting Internet access from taxation is long overdue, and the proposal for an online tax hike should not get in the way. So I urge my colleagues to join me now in working for a bipartisan, permanent Internet Tax Freedom Act, unencumbered by the kind of approach which has been introduced in the House and which creates a national sales tax. Let's reject that and move to pass a permanent Internet Tax Freedom Act as soon as possible. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I share the concern of my colleague, the Finance Committee chairman, and I support his interpretation of this provision. In accordance with longstanding historical practice, and because of important practical considerations, the chair and vice chair of the Joint Committee on Taxation should exercise principal control over the revenue estimating process, and section 3112 should not be interpreted to authorize the chairs of the Budget Committees to interfere with JCT's responsibility for and control over revenue estimates in any part of the congressional budget process. However, I must note that on the broader point of dynamic estimates, I am opposed, and I was therefore opposed to section 3112 being included in the budget resolution and conference agreement to start with. Dynamic estimates rely on shaky math and convenient assumptions that reward advocates of tax cuts while punishing advocates of long- term investments in people and our Nation's infrastructure.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Leader, I strongly oppose cloture on this cyber measure and I want to ask the Senator a question. I think we all understand how dangerous hackers are. They are increasingly sophisticated. The most dangerous hackers rarely use the same technique twice. I believe what the Senator is saying is we can't deal with this responsibly by stapling the cyber bill to something else. Is that one of the key reasons the leader is opposing this?

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

Mr. WYDEN. I will be very brief. I oppose cloture on the cyber measure. I think what the leader is saying is that the cyber measure is so serious we shouldn't deal with it by stapling it to something else. It is so important we ought to have an opportunity over that 2-day period to deal with it separately; is that the leader's view?

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I wish to speak this afternoon about a controversial proposal, the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act, otherwise known as CISA, which was filed yesterday as an amendment to the Defense authorization bill. I want to begin by saying to the Senate that I believe tacking this legislation onto the Defense bill would, in my view, be a significant mistake. I expect our colleagues are going to have a wide range of views about this legislation, and I hope the Senate can agree that bills as controversial as this one ought to be subject to public debate and an open-ended process, not stapled onto unrelated legislation with only a modest amount of discussion. This is particularly true given the issue of cyber security, which is going to have a significant impact on the security and the well-being of the American people and obviously the consumer rights and the privacy of law-abiding Americans. Because it is designed to increase government collection of information from private companies, I am of the view that for the Senate to have this expansion of collecting so much information about the people of the United States, for it to have real legitimacy in the eyes of the public, it is important to have open debate, with votes on amendments from Senators who have a wide variety of opinions on the issue of cyber security. Trying to rush this bill through the Senate, in my view, is not going to increase public confidence. So let me be clear about the process and talk a bit about the substance of the legislation as well. I believe tacking it onto the Defense bill is a flawed process. But I think there are also significant flaws with the substance of the legislation as well. Dozens of independent experts agree this legislation will have serious consequences and do little to make our Nation more secure at a time when cyber threats are very real. The issue of cyber threats requires more than a placebo, and this legislation is a bandaid on a gaping wound. I believe the Senate, having the time for adequate reflection and amendment, can do better. In beginning, I would like the Senate to know just how much controversy and concern this legislation has generated among those who are considered independent experts on cyber security. Shortly before the Intelligence Committee, which I have been honored to serve on for more than 14 years--shortly before the committee marked up this legislation, a coalition of nearly 50 organizations and security experts wrote to the members of the Intelligence Committee expressing serious concerns about the legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN. The signers of the letter expressed very serious concerns about the legislation and were particularly concerned it would ``significantly undermine privacy and civil liberties.'' Unfortunately, as the signers of the legislation will report, these concerns were not adequately addressed in the committee markup. Shortly after the committee markup, a group of 65 technologists and cyber security professionals wrote to Chairman Burr and Vice Chairman Feinstein expressing their opposition to this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record as well.

Mr. WYDEN. This is a particularly important letter. We have some of the most distinguished independent experts from across the country-- whether Amazon or Sysco, Stanford University, Dartmouth, some of the leading experts in the private sector and academia--expressing real concerns about this legislation and its House companion. From their letter: 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. These bills weaken privacy law without promoting security. We urge you to reject them. The reason I want our colleagues to be aware that these distinguished scientists in Silicon Valley, and literally every corner of the country, are so concerned is that the American people want both security and liberty--and they understand the two are not mutually exclusive. What this distinguished group of experts has just said is this ``weaken[s] privacy law without promoting security.'' I hope the Senate will review what these experts are saying. Along the same lines, I note that the Christian Science Monitor recently polled a group of more than 78 high-profile security and privacy experts from across government, think tanks, and the private sector. With these experts, they asked if legislation along the lines of this bill--this bill which has been attached to the Defense authorization. These experts were asked if this legislation would significantly reduce security breaches, and 87 percent said it would not. Many of them noted--a concern I have noted in opposing the legislation--that incentivizing private companies to share information about security threats is a very worthwhile proposition, a worthwhile thing to do. But they go on to say that bills like this are going to have limited value in that area and would have significant negative consequences. Now, many of my colleagues may have some disagreement with some of the dozens and dozens of independent experts I have just mentioned. Some of them may agree with the 13 percent of those experts who said this bill will do a lot to reduce security breaches. That is their right, and that is what a good Senate debate would be all about. But what the Senate should not do is pretend that this legislation is uncontroversial and try to rush it through without substantial revisions and the chance for Senators on both sides of the aisle to be heard. Now, I think we all understand why some in the Senate would feel we have to move immediately on this issue and in effect be tempted to rush to action here. We have all understood there have been a number of recent high-profile hacks that have drawn attention to the need to improve our Nation's cyber security--and I don't disagree with the importance of that at all. For example, a major company in Oregon was hacked by the Chinese simply because they were trying to enforce their rights under trade law. So this is not some abstract issue for the people I represent. We have seen it in my home State. So these high-profile hacks, like the one we saw here recently, is obviously drawing attention to the need to improve cyber security. The recent compromise of a very large amount of Office of Personnel Management data is obviously the latest of these, but it is certainly not going to be the last. Every single time I read about these kind of hacks, what I do is--and I have a very talented staff from the Intelligence Committee and my own office to assist me--I try to reach out and talk to experts in the field about ways to improve cyber security. But that doesn't mean every single piece of legislation with the word ``cyber security'' in it is automatically a good idea that ought to be blessed without revision in the Senate. The fact is, this particular cyber security bill is largely focused on trying to make it more difficult for individuals to be able to take on corporations. I understand why the U.S. Chamber of Commerce likes it so much. They have always been concerned about the rights of the large corporations. Sometimes the inevitable is, well, we are concerned about the large corporations, let's make it harder for individuals to be able to get a fair shake in the marketplace. But in my judgment, the actual cyber security value of this bill would be very limited, and the consequences for those individuals who are trying to get a fair shake would be quite serious. I am going to turn in a moment to the substance of the CISA bill to explain why I consider it so problematic and why it needs a major revision. But first I am going to take just a few minutes to discuss proposals that I believe would actually make a difference in terms of improving American cyber security. First, the most effective way to improve cyber security is to ensure that network owners take responsibility for the security of their networks and effectively implement good security practices. This proposal was the centerpiece of a 2012 bill called the Lieberman- Collins cyber security bill, and in my view that legislation was just a few changes away from being good cyber security law. Unfortunately, the notion of having the government create even voluntary standards for private companies was strongly opposed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Congress has not revisited it since. Beyond ensuring that network owners take responsibility and implement good security practices, it is also important to ensure that government agencies do not deliberately weaken security standards. I know the Presiding Officer in the Senate has a great interest, as I do, in innovation and American competitiveness. It is pretty hard--when we say the words: The American Government is actually thinking, as the FBI Director has talked about, about requiring companies to build weaknesses into their products--it is pretty hard to get your arms around this theory, not the least of which is the reason that once the good guys have the keys, the bad guys will also have the keys, which will facilitate cyber hacking. I have been skeptical of these statements from senior FBI officials suggesting that U.S. hardware and software companies should be required, as I would characterize it, to weaken the security of their products because encryption and other advanced security measures are a key part, a key compound of actually improving cyber security. I was pleased to see that in the other body, just last week, a new amendment from Representatives Massie and Lofgren to prevent the government from deliberately weakening encryption standards was voted on, and I am very hopeful the Senate will eventually follow suit. In fact, I offered that concept in the Intelligence Committee, and regrettably it did not pass. With regard to government-held data, it is absolutely imperative that Federal agencies receive the funding and expertise they need to develop and implement strong network security programs and to ensure that they have the technical and administrative controls in place to combat a wide range of cyber security threats. I also believe our government needs to be in a stronger position to recruit and retain a capable Federal cyber security workforce by ensuring that cyber security professionals can find opportunities in government that are as rewarding as those in the private sector. In order to ensure that there are enough professionals to fill positions in both the private sector and the government, it is obvious that there is going to need to be an investment in the education of the next generation of cyber security leaders. As we talk about responsible approaches to deal with these cyber issues, I would like to note that I consider the Consumer Privacy Protection Act--a piece of legislation initiated by Senator Leahy--to be another step in the right direction. This legislation creates a comprehensive approach to data security by requiring companies to build a cyber security program that can defend against cyber attacks and prevent data breaches. It also protects a wide range of personal information, not just name or financial account information but also online user names and passwords, information about a person's geolocation, and access to private digital photographs and videos. Unlike CISA, this legislation would, in my view, provide real tools to address the kinds of recent cyber attacks we have seen in the news, such as the celebrity photo hack. Unlike CISA, it would also empower individuals by requiring companies to notify consumers if their information has been lost and would protect the rights offered under some State laws for consumers to sue in the event of a privacy incident. The Consumer Privacy Protection Act is the right kind of responsible, thoughtful approach to cyber security, which is legislation that will help us get an added measure of security and public protection, while at the same time protecting the individual liberties and the privacy of our people. Finally, in my judgment, our country needs to be willing to impose consequences on foreign entities that attempt to hack into American networks and steal large quantities of valuable data. These hacks are undermining our national security, our economic competitiveness, and the personal privacy of huge numbers of Americans. These consequences should draw on the full range of American power, depending on the nature of the hack and the entity responsible. It would be a failure of American imagination to say that the only way to respond to foreign hacking is to have our military and intelligence agencies ``hack back,'' as the concept has been known, at the parties responsible. We are the most powerful country in the world, and our government has a wide variety of tools at its disposal, including economic sanctions, law enforcement, and multilateral diplomacy. And building a multifaceted strategy to deter foreign hacking is going to require all of those kinds of tools I have mentioned by way of articulating responsible steps to deal with cyber security, steps that protect both our security and liberty. All of those tools are ones we will have to draw on. Having laid out ways that the Senate on a bipartisan basis can improve cyber security, I want to turn to the proposal in detail that is now in front of the Senate. As I have said, I believe it makes sense to encourage private companies to share information about cyber security threats. Cyber is a problem. Sharing information can be useful, but it is also vital that information sharing not be bereft of privacy protections for law-abiding Americans. Cyber security is a problem. Information sharing is a plus. But let's make no mistake about it--an information-sharing bill that lacks privacy protections really is not a cyber security bill; it is a surveillance bill. That is what has been one of my major concerns about this legislation, that the legislation in front of the Senate--we talked about the flaws in the process, but substantively, if you have an information-sharing bill that lacks adequate privacy protections, it is a surveillance bill by another name. When the Senate Intelligence Committee voted on the CISA bill, I opposed it. I opposed it because I believe its insufficient privacy protections will lead to large volumes of Americans' personal information, personal information from law-abiding Americans who have done nothing wrong--that they will be faced with the prospect that their information is shared with the government even when that information is not needed for cyber security. When I say ``personal information,'' I am talking about the contents of emails, financial information, and what amounts to any data at all that is stored electronically. Some of my colleagues have stressed that companies will have a choice about whether to participate in this information-sharing part of the legislation. That is true, but while corporations will have a choice about whether to participate, they will be able to do so without the knowledge or consent of their customers, and they will receive broad liability protections when they do so. The CISA bill as written trumps all Federal privacy laws. Furthermore, once this information is shared with the government, government agencies will be permitted to use it for a wide variety of purposes unrelated to cyber security. The bill creates what I consider to be a double standard--really a bizarre double standard in that private information that is shared about individuals can be used for a variety of non-cyber security purposes, including law enforcement action against these individuals, but information about the companies supplying that information generally may not be used to police those companies. I will tell you, I think that will be pretty hard to explain at a townhall meeting in virtually any corner of America because I believe it is wrong to say that the privacy rights of corporations matter more than the privacy rights of individual Americans. I expect that some colleagues will say that it is not their intent to authorize this excessively broad collection. The argument will be that this is legislation to encourage companies to share information about actual cyber security threats, such as lines of malicious code and signatures of hostile cyber actors. Again, I would say to colleagues that I am all for encouraging companies to share information about genuine security threats, but if you read the language that is now before the Senate in the cyber security bill, the language of that bill is much broader than just sharing information about genuine security threats. If Senators want to pass a bill that is focused on real cyber security threats and includes real protection for Americans' privacy, then the Senate should add language specifying that companies should only provide the government with individuals' personal information if it is necessary to describe a cyber security threat. That does not seem to me to be an unreasonable protection for the privacy of Americans, that the Senate would adopt language specifying that the companies provide the government with individuals' personal information if it is necessary to describe a cyber threat. That is pretty obvious. We can explain that, I would say to the distinguished President of the Senate, at a townhall meeting, that if it is related to a cyber security threat, then the companies would provide individuals' personal information. But this would discourage companies from unnecessarily sharing large amounts of their customers' private information with the government. Unfortunately, the cyber security bill in front of the Senate now takes the opposite approach. It only requires companies to withhold information that is known at the time of sharing to be personal information unrelated to cyber security. This approach will clearly discourage companies from closely reviewing the information that they share and will lead to a much greater amount of Americans' personal information being transferred needlessly to government agencies. I hope that here in the Senate there will be an opportunity to carefully consider the potential consequences of this legislation before voting to rush it through by an expedited process. I have said here several times that cyber security is a real problem, and policymakers are going to have to deal with it. In fact, I will go so far as to say that the issue of cyber security is going to be an ongoing and enduring challenge of the digital age. It is my view that every Senator who serves in this body today can expect to deal with cyber security questions for the rest of their career in public service. Voting to rush a bill through, however, is not going to make these problems somehow go away, and it will have real consequences for our constituents for years to come, and in particular, it will not make us safer and will jeopardize the rights of individual Americans. Before I wrap up, I believe it is important and I have an obligation to draw my colleagues' attention to one final issue. As of this afternoon, there is a secret Justice Department legal opinion that is of clear relevance to this debate that continues to be withheld from the public. This opinion remains classified. The Senate rules prohibit me from describing it in detail. But I can say that it interprets common commercial service agreements and that in my judgment is inconsistent with the public's understanding of the law. So this gets back to a question I have talked about on the floor often, which is secret law, when the public reads one thing and there is a secret interpretation that goes in another direction and it contributes to the public's cynicism about Washington. As always, I certainly see it as my job to say that colleagues can decide whether to take my counsel, but I believe any Senator who votes for this legislation, without reading this secret Justice Department legal opinion I have referred to, is voting without a full understanding of the relevant legal landscape. If Senators do not understand how these common commercial service agreements have been interpreted by the executive branch, then it will be harder for the Senate to have a fully informed debate on the cyber security legislation, whether it is considered now or later. I would also like to note for the record that I have repeatedly asked the Justice Department to withdraw this opinion and to make it public so anyone who is party to one of these commercial service agreements can decide whether their agreement ought to be revised. The Justice Department has chosen not to take my advice on either of my suggestions. In public testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee, the deputy head of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel told me she personally would not rely on this opinion today, and I appreciate her view on that matter. Yet, until the opinion is withdrawn, I believe Senators should be concerned about other government officials choosing to rely on it at any time. In my judgment, that is a very clear instance of the government developing what is essentially secret law-- law that is at variance with what you read if you are in a coffee shop in Arkansas or Utah or anywhere else. The reality is, as I have said often on the floor, operations always have to be secret, as do the sources and methods. Chairman Hatch remembers this from his service on the Intelligence Committee. Operations always have to be secret, but the law ought to be public because that is how the American people have confidence in how we make decisions in our Republic. I will close by saying it is quite obvious at this point that I have significant reservations about the cyber security bill. I believe a number of Senators are going to share these concerns. I will let them speak for themselves, although I believe Senator Leahy's strong statement yesterday was certainly on point. Yet I will also say, even to my colleagues who are inclined to vote for this bill, that I hope all Senators will think about whether this is an appropriate process for this sort of legislation. I have already said I believe Senators are going to be dealing with cyber security questions for the rest of their time in public service, because in the digital age, I think we are going to see a constant evolution in this field with respect to these threats and both the technical and political concerns that are raised by them. Should the Senate be rushing a bill like this through by tacking it onto an unrelated defense measure? Is this the best way to show the American people, once again, that security and liberty are not mutually exclusive and that it is possible to do both? If Senators share the concerns I have raised, I hope they will oppose the cyber security amendment if it is brought up for a vote on the Defense bill. I hope Senators will support this issue, which has been brought to the floor under a different process--a process that involves regular order, so every Senator on both sides of the aisle will have an opportunity to make the revisions I believe it needs and to offer their own ideas. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, we have had a number of our colleagues come to the floor to talk about the importance of the Export-Import Bank, and I want to see if I can put in context the exceptionally important work done by our colleagues Senator Cantwell and Senator Heitkamp on this issue. We have been talking in this body for weeks now about the importance of trade and particularly tapping global markets, given the fact that there are going to be 1 billion middle-class people in the developing world in 2025. This is an exceptional opportunity for us to be able to sell the products we make here, whether they are computers or wine or helicopters or planes, you name it. We had a big debate about trade promotion authority. What I want to spend just a few minutes talking about is whether a Senator was for trade promotion authority or not, they ought to support the Export- Import Bank because the Export-Import Bank provides key financing tools to promote products that are made in my home State, in the States of our colleagues, and all across the land. It has supported tens of thousands of American jobs--even hundreds of thousands--for decades. It doesn't cost American taxpayers a single dime. In fact, the Export- Import Bank covers its own costs and then some. It actually generates revenue for taxpayers--$7 billion over the last two decades and $675 million in fiscal year 2014 alone. So what I would submit is the Export-Import Bank is a way to ensure that in this country we get trade done right. I happen to believe it makes sense to support the trade promotion act because that is going to ensure that we are going to have a chance to drive down some of those tariffs that are barriers to American products. Whether you are for it or not, you ought to support the Export-Import Bank because it provides key tools so we can reduce barriers to our exports, take on modern challenges that threaten American workers, and fight to create more high-wage jobs in the United States because it provides the financing you need in order to actually secure one of these deals. The Export- Import Bank is a core part of getting trade done right. Countries, including Germany, Japan, Mexico, and Canada, all have agencies that are up and running and do it in a fashion that make their exports more competitive. How are they doing it? They are using financing tools, including supporting their manufacturers and pushing their products into the global marketplace. As Senators Cantwell and Heitkamp have said, we need this tool to make sure our country doesn't fall behind. We shouldn't let the Export- Import Bank become some kind of ideological pinata that you keep bashing on, not recognizing it will hurt our competitiveness. I think it would be legislative malpractice to let the Bank expire because it would needlessly endanger the thousands of businesses and tens of thousands of jobs supported by Ex-Im, including many in my home State. In particular, in Oregon, one can see that Ex-Im is a very substantial help to small- and medium-sized companies. In fact, 86 percent of the funds disbursed in fiscal year 2014 went to small businesses. Thanks to the Export-Import Bank, companies in Albany could find markets abroad and hire new workers. They manufacture important things such as titanium casting. Selmet is a perfect example, a company that got its start in my home State years ago. Today, it employs hundreds of people in Oregon and across the United States, and 40 percent of its revenue comes from overseas. They got off the ground with help from Ex-Im Bank, and it has customers in France, Germany, and Asia, and it is looking to expand further. These kinds of success stories are ones you see in every single State because these startups got help when it was essential to have that added boost to be able to seize the opportunities around the world and create high-skilled, high-wage jobs. To me, when we debate the future of the Export-Import Bank, colleagues, this is about red, white, and blue jobs. Keeping the Export-Import Bank up and running with the important financing tools it offers is part of getting trade done right. I commend our colleagues Senators Cantwell, Heitkamp, Murray, and Graham, who have come together in a bipartisan way to work to extend the Bank as quickly as possible, and they have my support.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, this week is National Hemp History Week, and to help celebrate I thought I would show a few Oregon-made hemp products to highlight the many uses and opportunities for industrial hemp in my State and across the country. In the basket I brought, I have food, soap, clothes, and even deck sealant, all made in Oregon, bought and sold in American stores and used by Americans. Oregon companies such as Bob's Red Mill, Fiddlebumps, and Hemp Shield contribute to our economy in unique ways. Industrial hemp supports a $620 million industry in America, and our companies have found innovative ways of incorporating it into everyday products. However, the full growth potential of this industry is being cut down before it can fully bloom because a single ingredient that links all of these products--the hemp itself--cannot be grown in America. The unfortunate reality is that current Federal rules prohibit our farmers from growing industrial hemp on American soil. This means 100 percent of the hemp used in these products is imported from other nations. The Federal ban on hemp amounts, in my view, to a restriction on free enterprise, and it doesn't accomplish anything but stifles job creation and economic growth. We are the world's largest consumers of hemp products, but we are the only major industrialized nation to ban hemp farming. This hasn't always been the case, and it doesn't have to continue to be the case. It was once a booming crop in America and it can and should be again. American farmers were growing this product as early as the 1600s, before our Nation was even founded. The Declaration of Independence, colleagues, was written on paper made from hemp. In the 1800s and early 1900s, it was used to make rope, heating oil, and textiles. During World War II we used it as part of the Hemp for Victory Program to support our soldiers. But everything got changed when hemp got wrapped up with marijuana in Federal regulations, and it has been banned ever since. Are they related? Maybe industrial hemp and marijuana are related species, but one should not be confused with the other, much like a Chihuahua and a St. Bernard. Mixing hemp in with a ban on growing marijuana is based on a lot of misconception. No matter where Members of this body come down on medical or recreational marijuana, industrial hemp and marijuana might be related plant species, but there are big differences between them, such as their chemical makeup. Because they are not the same plant, they should not be treated with the same regulation and prohibitions. In my view, keeping the ban on growing hemp makes about as much sense as instituting a ban on Portobello mushrooms. There is no reason to outlaw a product that is perfectly safe because of what it is related to. That is why the majority leader Senator McConnell and I came together, with our colleague from Kentucky Rand Paul and my colleague from Oregon Jeff Merkley--we came together on a bipartisan basis to introduce the Industrial Hemp Farming Act. Our bill would make sure hemp does not get lumped into the definition of marijuana in the Controlled Substances Act. Our bill is all about stopping the unfair punishment of entrepreneurs and farmers who want to be part of a growing ag industry here in America. Companies in our Nation that are importing hemp to use in food, cosmetics, soap, clothing, and auto parts, they ought to be buying that hemp from American farmers and contributing to our agricultural sector. I will close by way of saying there are also big environmental benefits to industrial hemp. It takes less water to grow hemp than it does to grow cotton, and hemp generally requires fewer pesticides than other crops. I will put it this way, colleagues: If you can buy it at your local supermarket--and I got involved in this because I saw it at Costco when my wife was pregnant with our third child--if you can buy it at the local supermarket, American farmers ought to be able to grow it. I urge my colleagues to join me, the distinguished majority leader Senator McConnell, his colleague Senator Rand Paul, and my colleague Senator Merkley in our legislation to address this gap in American law and today join me in celebrating National Hemp History Week by learning more about this safe and versatile crop and the potential it holds to bolster American agriculture and the domestic economy. These products are products that are sold all across America. We ought to have a chance for our farmers--farmers in Nebraska, farmers in Arkansas, farmers in Indiana--to be able to grow this product and reap the benefits of the private economy associated with it. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I asked for an extra few minutes. I want to spend another few minutes just talking about another part of our economy that I think can grow in the days ahead, and I would ask unanimous consent, Mr. President, to bring a basket of Oregon products onto the floor at this time.

Mr. WYDEN

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

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business for up to 15 minutes.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, this Sunday marks the 30th anniversary of the release of the beloved film, ``The Goonies.'' With enduring and relatable themes of adventure, adolescence, and friendship, ``The Goonies'' has withstood the test of time and firmly established its place in American culture as a cult classic. A large part of what makes this film unique and impactful is its iconic setting along the stunning Oregon coastline. Indeed, so significant is the film's location that thousands of fans from around the world are gathering this week for a four-day festival in Astoria, Oregon--or, ``The Goon Docks''--to celebrate the magic that is ``The Goonies.'' In fact, Astoria has held a Goonies-based festival every year since the film's release in 1985. ``The Goonies'' 30th anniversary celebration will include a variety of events around Astoria, as well as Cannon Beach, OR--another Oregon coastal town that served as an idyllic backdrop for the film. Most notably, Cannon Beach's impressive Haystack Rock is featured prominently in the film's opening scene. Fans will be able to relive their favorite Goonies memories by participating in festivities such as tours of the filming locations, treasure hunts, and a group ``truffle shuffle.'' Astoria's Oregon Film Museum also invites festival attendees to visit its Goonies gallery, take a mug shot with friends, and even make their own feature film. Needless to say, it is sure to be a weekend of fun, nostalgia, and, in typical Goonie fashion, adventure. Just as the original Goonies fans and stars have grown and matured since the film's release in 1985, so has Oregon's film industry. With its magnificent and diverse natural beauty, Oregon has become a much sought after location for film production. As the backdrop for major television shows and box-office hits alike, film production in Oregon brings with it good-paying jobs and tourism that in turn support local businesses and economic development across the State. Certainly all film producers in Oregon and across the country should aspire to achieve the remarkable success of ``The Goonies''.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, since World War I, military working dogs have worked side-by-side with our men and women in uniform in various roles and operations. Today military working dogs routinely assist U.S. troops on dangerous front-line assignments, helping to detect roadside bombs and improvised explosive devices, saving hundreds of American lives and preventing countless injuries. Moreover, both on and off the battlefield, these dogs represent critical partners, invaluable team members, and cherished companions. Unlike traditional soldiers, a canine's service does not necessarily end when it reaches retirement. Instead, military working dogs often continue to support our nation by acting as service dogs for veterans suffering from mental and physical disabilities. Because of the close bond forged by their shared experiences in the military, these dogs can play a unique and important role in for our veterans--quite literally saving lives even once they return to the home front. Unfortunately, it is not always so easy for former dog handlers to be reunited with their four-legged comrades-in-arms. Because of the way the law is currently written, the Department of Defense is not required to bring military working dogs back to the United States upon retirement. As such, most military working dogs end up being retired overseas wherever they end their service. As a result, former handlers, veterans, and other members of the military community wishing to adopt a dog may be forced to cover the cost of transporting the dog halfway across the world. Our Nation's veterans deserve to be reunited with their canine counterparts and they should not have to shoulder the official costs and fees associated with doing so. To correct this situation, I am introducing the Military Working Dog Retirement Act. By requiring the Department of Defense to arrange and pay for the transportation of retiring military working dogs to the United States, this bill is a key step to ensuring former military dog handlers may benefit from the continued partnership and service of these loyal canines. It is my hope that the Senate will pass this legislation swiftly. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, since World War I, military working dogs have worked side-by-side with our men and women in uniform in various roles and operations. Today military working dogs routinely assist U.S. troops on dangerous front-line assignments, helping to detect roadside bombs and improvised explosive devices, saving hundreds of American lives and preventing countless injuries. Moreover, both on and off the battlefield, these dogs represent critical partners, invaluable team members, and cherished companions. Unlike traditional soldiers, a canine's service does not necessarily end when it reaches retirement. Instead, military working dogs often continue to support our nation by acting as service dogs for veterans suffering from mental and physical disabilities. Because of the close bond forged by their shared experiences in the military, these dogs can play a unique and important role in for our veterans--quite literally saving lives even once they return to the home front. Unfortunately, it is not always so easy for former dog handlers to be reunited with their four-legged comrades-in-arms. Because of the way the law is currently written, the Department of Defense is not required to bring military working dogs back to the United States upon retirement. As such, most military working dogs end up being retired overseas wherever they end their service. As a result, former handlers, veterans, and other members of the military community wishing to adopt a dog may be forced to cover the cost of transporting the dog halfway across the world. Our Nation's veterans deserve to be reunited with their canine counterparts and they should not have to shoulder the official costs and fees associated with doing so. To correct this situation, I am introducing the Military Working Dog Retirement Act. By requiring the Department of Defense to arrange and pay for the transportation of retiring military working dogs to the United States, this bill is a key step to ensuring former military dog handlers may benefit from the continued partnership and service of these loyal canines. It is my hope that the Senate will pass this legislation swiftly. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Will the distinguished ranking member yield?

Mr. WYDEN. I think the ranking member has made a number of very important points here. The fact of the matter is that we are all here because the majority leader wasn't able to defeat the surveillance reform. So instead, he has chosen to introduce amendments designed to water it down. I am disappointed by this. I will oppose all of these amendments, and I want to have a colloquy briefly with the ranking minority member. The ranking minority member and our colleague from Connecticut, Senator Blumenthal, have done very good reform work with respect to the FISA Court. In particular, what the distinguished Senator from Vermont has done, with the help of the Senator from Connecticut, is to bring some very important sunshine and transparency to the court. As my two colleagues have pointed out on the Judiciary Committee, we really meet on the major questions--not all of them, as the Senator from Vermont has just said--but what is really needed is to make sure that both sides get a chance to be heard, not just the government side. So what troubles me--and I am interested in the reaction of my colleague from Vermont, and I want to praise him and my colleague from Connecticut--is that it seems to me that what the Senate majority leader wants to do is basically to take us back to the days of secret law. What is important, as we get into this, and particularly with this amendment, is that there is a difference between secret operations and secret law. Operations always have to be kept secret. I see my friend Chairman Burr here. We serve on the Intelligence Committee together. The two of us feel so strongly about making sure secret operations are kept secret because otherwise Americans are going to die. We can't have secret operations splayed all hither and yon in the public square. But the law always ought to be public. As Senator Leahy has pointed out for some time--and I warned about it here on the floor--what we would see is, if you live in Connecticut or Vermont, the PATRIOT Act talked about collecting information relevant to investigation. Nobody thought that meant millions and millions of records on law-abiding people. That decision was made in secret. It was made without the reforms advocated by the Senator from Connecticut and the Senator from Vermont. So I would be interested in my colleague from Vermont's reaction to the majority leader's amendment to scale back your very constructive reforms on the FISA Court. And my sense is that what the majority leader's approach would do would take us back to the days of secret law. I think that is a mistake, and I would be curious about the reaction of my colleague from Vermont on this.

Mr. WYDEN. Because I think, again, my colleague from Connecticut has spoken to what the stakes are here. For the last decade, intelligence officials have been relying on secret interpretations of their authorities that have been very different from the plain reading of public law. The public has seen the consequences of that, and they are angry because the American people know we can have policies that promote both security and liberty. I would just like to ask a question of my colleague with the respect to what the implications would be of hollowing out the good work you and Senator Leahy have done with respect to having more transparency and both sides making a case on key questions with respect to the FISA Court. I would like to note that the majority leader's second amendment delays implementation of other important reforms that you all have dealt with. For example, one question I was asked about at a townhall meeting just this past weekend in Tillamook, OR, where I was, is people were concerned about what would we do to protect our Nation when there was an emergency. You all, in your good work, have, in effect, said you would strengthen the language to make sure that when there was an emergency--government officials already can issue an emergency authorization to get the business records and you would then seek court approval, and you all strengthen that. All of you on the Judiciary Committee said: We are going to provide another measure of security for the American people; in other words, we are going to protect their liberty and we are going to strengthen their security. It looks to me like the combination of the majority leader's two amendments scaling back the reforms, the transparency reforms in the FISA Court, and delaying the strengthening of emergency authorities that can protect the American people without jeopardizing their liberty would really roll back the kind of reforms the American people want. I would be interested in my colleague's reaction to that.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I would like to recognize and honor an exemplary Oregonian family who will soon gather for their 125th family reunion. Family reunions are difficult to organize and even harder to make longlasting traditions. Nonetheless, since 1891 the children of Hanson and Lavina Stevens have managed to hold yearly family reunions, with the exception of one missed reunion during the First World War--truly an amazing feat. In many ways, the history of the Stevens family is the history of the State of Oregon. In 1852, the Stevens family decided to take advantage of the Donation Land Claim Act of 1850, which encouraged settlement of the Oregon Territory. Hanson and Lavina Stevens, their eight children and a wagon loaded with vital supplies traveled the treacherous Oregon Trail. Twenty-two other wagons traveled alongside the Stevens family and undertook the Oregon Trail's most dangerous migration year ever recorded. While all of the other families decided to stop near Fort Bridger, WY, in search of gold, Hanson Stevens concluded that mining camps were not suitable for raising his family. Instead, the Stevens, like thousands of other pioneers, chose to settle in Oregon. They chose the ``Promised Land.'' Ever since, the Stevens and their descendants have contributed to the territory and then the State of Oregon. In June of 1891, the entire family gathered for the birthday of the family patriarch at the time, Isaac Stevens. That tradition continued on each year, and eventually turned from a birthday party into a more formal family reunion. Today the Stevens decedents are six clans strong, and they rotate the responsibility for hosting their memorable reunions. This year the Ringo Clan will be hosting the 125th reunion on July 19, 2015 at Champoeg Park in St. Paul, OR. The family tells me that each year the various clans all give a report to the family, and the details are recorded in a leather-bound journal. As you can imagine, this journal traces not just the history of the Stevens family but also provides a view into the history of Oregon and the United States. And that is part of what makes family reunions so wonderful. They don't just connect us to the aunts, uncles and cousins we don't see very often; they also connect us to our past, our heritage. Family reunions are a place to share family lore, shared values, and traditions. I am thrilled to recognize the Stevens family 125th annual reunion. I hope to see the Stevens family tradition continue for many, many years to come.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business for up to 15 minutes.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, this afternoon I wish to call attention to the severe drought and wildfires that are already burning in my home State of Oregon and across the West. Earlier today, the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, on which I serve, held a hearing on drought. There is no question that communities in many of our Western States are experiencing very uncertain times. Our farmers are concerned about water for their crops. Outdoorsmen and business owners fear low reservoir and river levels are going to ruin the summer season. Conservationists worry about a lack of cold water for fish habitats. Drought and fire are a dangerous combination and create a trend continuing this year. Fire seasons have gotten drier. The fires have gotten hotter, and they have become far more expensive to fight. And severe drought is now compounding the crisis. We ought to make no mistake about what is going on in the West. The West is now bone dry, and the tragic fact is that this is the new normal for Oregon farmers and ranchers. Water is an increasingly scarce and precious resource. Right now, every last square mile of Oregon is experiencing abnormally dry conditions, and almost 70 percent of my State is under severe drought. Fifteen of Oregon's 36 counties have declared drought emergencies or have been declared a drought emergency by the Governor. The unusually warm winter in my home State meant record low snowpack, which devastates summertime runoff, which is so important to Oregon's water supply. Drought raises enormous issues for communities and State and Federal agencies. They have to find ways to cope while using less water. Authorities feel they are in a position, or are forced into a position, to have to make seemingly impossible choices about where to dedicate increasingly scarce resources. All of these rural communities have to face challenges that are heightened by drought--particularly the threat of wildfires. Drought conditions mean that western forests and grasslands are especially likely to go up in flames. It means that more acres will burn, more people and more structures will be at risk, and more funds are going to be needed to put the fires out. Fire season this year has started earlier than normal. In fact, I received a fire briefing at home this March. That is the earliest I have had a fire briefing in all of my time in Congress. It certainly bodes badly for the extra costs that we are likely to see. I recently got a letter from the Forest Service with the estimate of anticipated wildfire suppression costs for fiscal year 2015. The middle-of-the-road estimate for how much it will cost to fight wildfires is nearly $1.25 billion. On the high end, it could cost more than $1.6 billion. But the funding, however, that has been dedicated to fighting fires does not come close--not close--to covering those costs. The appropriated amount is $200 million less than even the most conservative median forecast. Wishful thinking in the budget is not going to be very useful in putting the fires out. Fighting fires costs money, and it can't be punted into the future like some minor budget line item. Once again, then, we are looking at the prospect of the Forest Service having to raid other accounts in order to put out the blazes. According to the Forest Service, in 2013, $40 million was essentially stolen from the National Forest Fund, which would pay for the stewardship and management of the 193 million acres of national forests and grasslands. And $30 million was stolen from the account that funds the disposal of brush and other debris from timber operations. This brush and debris is essentially fuel for future fires. Those figures represent the stark reality that the broken funding system in place is shortchanging the resources needed for sensibly fighting wildfires. The cycle of stealing money from prevention accounts to pay for suppression of forest fires just repeats itself again and again without end, and it will continue until this funding problem is finally fixed. Senator Crapo, our colleague from Idaho, and I have been working on a bipartisan basis to fix this flawed policy for quite some time now. He and I introduced the Wildfire Disaster Funding Act to end this damaging cycle, which I have described and which in the West we call fire borrowing. Our bill would raise the Federal disaster cap to allow the agencies to treat wildfire-fighting efforts like other natural disasters because wildfires are natural disasters, destructive and costly, no different than hurricanes, floods, and tornadoes. When our governmental agencies are forced to borrow from other accounts to fight fires that have bankrupted these accounts for fire suppression, they rob from the funds that are needed to reduce hazardous fuels in the forests, which leads to even more choked and overstocked forests ripe for future fires. In effect, what happens is the prevention funds--the funds for thinning, cleaning out all of that debris--get shorted. So then you might have a lightning strike or something in our part of the world and you have an inferno on your hands. The government, in effect, borrows from the prevention fund to put the fire out, and the problem just gets worse and worse. It is that problem that Senator Crapo and I are trying to fix. On a bipartisan basis, we seek to give the agencies the tools they need to support the courageous firefighters on the ground, men and women who put their lives at risk to ensure that Americans, their homes and communities are protected from destructive wildfires. I know there are other Members of the Senate who are very interested in solving the fire-borrowing problem. I encourage all those Members to work with me, Senator Crapo, and our staff to find a solution that is acceptable to Congress and can be passed soon. This is an urgent matter. This is not something you can sort of let go and offer the amendment to the amendment to the amendment, the kind of thing that happens here, and it just gets shunted off for years on end. This is urgent business because the West has to be in a position to clear these hazardous fuels and get out in front of these increasingly dangerous and ominous fires. We have to end--we have to end this cycle of catastrophic wildfires in the West. It is long past time for action. I urge colleagues to join Senator Crapo and I to work with us and our staff so this body moves, and moves quickly, to fix this problem. There is an awful lot of uncertainty when it comes to calculating the Federal budget. But what we know for sure--for sure--is that this problem of wildfires in the West is getting increasingly serious. The fires are bigger, the fires are hotter, and they last longer. It is time to budget for reducing this problem in a sensible way. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.