Ron Wyden

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Before he leaves the floor, I want to thank Senator Brown for again and again putting in front of the committee and all Senators the importance of this issue. I just want to read a sentence from the paper yesterday that really puts a human face on this enforcement issue that Senator Brown has so often come back to. A quote in the New York Times says: ``Candy makers want to preserve a loophole.'' Now, this is the loophole that was closed in the Customs bill. The article goes on to say that ``Candy makers want to preserve a loophole . . . that allows them to import African cocoa harvested by child labor.'' What Senator Brown has said is without, in effect, this enforcement language, this vigorous enforcement language that is in the Customs bill, we would basically be back in yesteryear's policy, back in what we had for decades and decades, where youngsters would be exploited in this way. So we are going to talk about trade here for a few days. I think colleagues and--certainly my colleagues on the Finance Committee know that I strongly support expanded trade. I look at the globe. There are going to be 1 billion middle-class people in the developing world in 2025. They are going to have a fair amount of money to spend. We want them to spend on the goods and services produced in the United States. So we support expanding those opportunities, increasing those exports. The reality is expanding trade exports and enforcing the trade law are two sides of the same coin. Because what happens at home--I had community meetings in all of my counties, had several in the last couple of weeks. The first question that often comes up is a citizen will say: I hear there is talk about a new trade deal. Well, how about first enforcing the laws that are on the books? That is why the group of 13 protrade Senators yesterday wanted to weigh in, right at the outset of this debate, talking about how important trade enforcement is to a policy that I call trade done right--trade down right, a modern trade policy. I am going to be brief in opening this discussion, but I want to spend a few minutes describing how we got to this place. A few weeks ago, the Finance Committee met and passed a bipartisan package of four bills. These were more than a year in the making. The message I sought to send right at the outset was a message that would respond to all the people in this country who want to know if you are doing more than just going back to NAFTA. Those four bills suggest that this will be very different. The first, the trade promotion bill, the TPA as it is called, helps rid our trade policies of excessive secrecy. The reason this is so important is the first thing people say is, whether it is in South Carolina or Oregon or anywhere else: What is all of this excessive secrecy about? If you believe strongly in trade and you want more of it, why would you want to have all of this needless secrecy that just makes people so convinced that you are kind of sort of hiding things? So we have made very dramatic changes in that area. A second strengthens and expands the support system for our workers. It is known as trade adjustment assistance. This is to make sure that when there are changes in the private economy, changes that so often take place and cause workers to see positions they have had be affected, this is a section of trade policy that gives them a chance, almost a springboard, into another set of job opportunities. The third would finally put, as I have said, trade enforcement into high gear so we can crack down on trade cheats and protect American workers and exports. The reality is trade enforcement is a jobs bill. It is protecting jobs. That is another reason it is so important. The fourth, which has been touched on by our distinguished colleagues, the Senators from Georgia and Delaware, involves the trade preference programs that are so crucial to both our employers and developing countries. Taken together, the bills form a package of trade policies that are going to help our country create more high-skill, high-wage jobs in my State and across the land. As I have said so often, if you wanted to explain what a modern trade policy is in a sentence, what you would say is: This is the kind of approach that helps us grow things in America, make things in America, add value to them in America, and then ship them somewhere, particularly if you look to that developing world where there are going to be, in just a few years, 1 billion middle-class consumers. That strikes me as a real economic shot in the arm that will be of long-term benefit to our people. Now, with respect to enforcement, I want to take just a few minutes to talk about why I think this is an appropriate opening step in the legislative process. Now, I already talked about the 13, 14 protrade Democrats who got together yesterday and weighed in as a group. Why we did it is that trade enforcement in that particular bill, which is part of the initial debate here, is a jobs bill. It is a cornerstone of a new trade approach that is going to reject the status quo. As the President said, to his credit, during the State of the Union Address, ``Past trade deals have not always lived up to the hype.'' My own view is a lot of that can be attributed to subpar trade enforcement. That, in my view, is because so many of the same old enforcement tools from the NAFTA era and decades prior just are not the right kind of tool to get the job done in 2015. Our competitors overseas use shell companies, fraudulent records, and sophisticated schemes to play cat and mouse with U.S. Customs authorities. Our competitors overseas, in a number of instances, intimidate American firms into relocating factories or surrendering our intellectual property. Our competitors often spy on our companies and trade enforcers to steal secrets and block our efforts at holding them accountable. To mask their activities, they hide their paper trails and engage in outright fraud. For a number of years, I chaired the trade subcommittee of the Finance Committee. I can tell you, these examples I have given of modern challenges is just touching the surface of what we found in our investigation. At one point, we set up a sting operation to try to catch people who were merchandise laundering. Not only does our trade enforcement need to catch up to these schemes, we have to have a trade enforcement policy that stays ahead of the game. That is why the bipartisan enforcement package, the Customs package, will take enforcement up to a higher level. This bill raises the bar for all of our trade enforcers, whether it is the Customs agents at the border checking inbound shipments, the Commerce Department investigator looking into an unfair trade petition or the lawyer from the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative following up on possible violations of trade agreements. So I want to just quickly tick through a few of the major parts of this trade enforcement package. A proposal that I pushed for a number of years to include will help Customs crack down on foreign companies that try to get around the rules by hiding their identity and sending their products on hard-to-trace shipping routes. Another will close a shameful loophole--a shameful loophole that Senator Brown and I just talked about--that allows products made with forced and child labor to be sold in our country. A third will build what I call an unfair trade alert to help identify when American jobs and exports are under stress before the damage is done. With this early warning system in effect, you will have warning bells ringing earlier and more loudly than ever before when a country attempts to undercut an American industry like China recently tried with solar panels. I think that is especially important, because when you are home and you are listening to companies and workers and organizations talk about trade enforcement, they say: You know, it just gets to us too late. By the time somebody back there in Washington, DC, is talking about enforcing the trade laws, the lights have gone out at the plant, the workers have had their lives shattered, and the community is feeling pain from one end to another. So the point of the early warning system is we now have the kind of technology and access to the kind of information that can set off these early warning signals. That is what the unfair trade alert provision is all about. Fourth, for the first time in decades, the Congress would set out clear enforcement priorities with the focus on jobs and growth that will build real accountability and follow through in our trade enforcement system. Finally, it includes a proposal from Senator Brown that goes a long way toward ensuring that our trade enforcers use the full strength of our antidumping and countervailing duty laws to fight unfair tactics. I said months ago, repeatedly, making it very clear, when Chairman Hatch and I began working on this package, that strengthening trade law enforcement was at the very top of the list of my priorities. I did, in starting all of those discussions and the debate, repeatedly come back to the fact that for those of us who are protrade, who think it is absolutely key for the kind of export-related jobs and growth that we need in this country, we have to shore up trade enforcement because it is not credible to say that you are pushing for a new trade agreement if people do not find it credible that you are going to enforce the laws that are already existing on the books and relate to the past trade agreements. So strengthening trade enforcement has been at the top of my list of priorities for many, many years. The Finance Committee passed this enforcement measure with a voice vote. So that ought to indicate alone that this was not some topic of enormous controversy. We had votes on the trade promotion act, we had votes on the trade adjustment act. There was pretty vigorous debate on those--voice vote on the enforcement provision and the Customs package because it includes so much of what I think Members, actually on both sides of the trade debate, feel strongly about. I have talked about why as a protrade Democrat I feel so strongly about enforcement. My colleague Senator Brown speaks eloquently about another point of view, but he feels strongly about trade enforcement. So I am very pleased the Senate is on this bill, is beginning debate on this legislation. I am thoroughly committed to getting this legislation passed before we leave for the recess. No one can ever make guarantees, but I am sure going to pull out all the stops to do it. I just want, as we close the opening of this debate, to thank both the majority leader and the minority leader for working with myself and Chairman Hatch and others to get us to this point. We had a bipartisan effort in the Finance Committee, and we are very pleased to see the distinguished Presiding Officer join us on the Finance Committee. We had a bipartisan package, as the distinguished Presiding Officer knows, in the Finance Committee, which passed overwhelmingly on a bipartisan basis. Now, starting with this debate and with what is ahead of us, we have a chance to build on the bipartisan work that took place in the Finance Committee. It is very appropriate that we begin this discussion focusing on trade enforcement, as the 14 protrade Democrats did yesterday in making an announcement with respect to the importance of this topic. It is going to be a good debate. The stakes are enormously high. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to get this legislation passed and to get a bill to the President of the United States to sign. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, before the Senator leaves the floor, I want to thank the Senate majority leader for working with us in a constructive fashion to make it possible for all of the vital parts of the trade package to be considered. I look forward to working closely with him. Colleagues, I will say that what has been done through the cooperation of the majority leader and the minority leader is, in effect, to say that trade enforcement will be the first bill to be debated; and in doing so, it drives home yesterday's message of 13 protrade Democrats who together said robust enforcement of our trade laws is a prerequisite to a modern trade policy. In making this the first topic for debate, it is a long overdue recognition that vigorous trade enforcement has to be in the forefront, not in the rear, and a recognition that the 1990 NAFTA trade playbook is being set aside. I am going to be brief at this point, but I would just like to give a little bit of history as to how we got to this point.

Mr. WYDEN. I would be happy to.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I am proud to introduce the Bioenergy Act of 2015. Managed in an environmentally responsible way, woody biomass presents a carbon-neutral alternative to fossil fuels for heating and powering homes, schools and businesses. Much of the woody biomass in the U.S. that could be used for energy production is either waste from the forest products industry, or small trees that contribute to the overcrowding of forests and wildfires. In 2013, wildfires burned 4.3 million acres of American forests and rangeland, and the Federal Government spent $1.7 billion to fight them. Additionally, about 2 billion metric tons, or 30 percent, of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions came from fossil fuel use in space heating, water heating or electricity generation for American homes and businesses. Using woody biomass for heat and power can help fund wildfire risk reduction and forest restoration, all while creating low-carbon energy and a stable source of jobs in rural economies across the country. Despite this potential, the U.S. Department of Energy, DOE, has not invested in biomass heat, bioheat, and power, biopower, projects and research. This bill introduces modest steps to develop this resource, learn more about its full potential, and improve interagency coordination between DOE and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA, Forest Service on this topic. Specifically, the bill will establish a competitive cost-share grant program at the Department of Energy to improve technologies for processing woody biomass and bringing down transportation costs, as well as innovative technologies for using biomass for heat and power-- from new power plant designs, to neighborhood heating systems called ``district energy'' systems. The bill also creates a cost-share grant program through the U.S. Forest Service to support proven biomass technologies, like combined heat and power, CHP. To assist with financing, the bill expands a loan program run by the USDA Rural Utilities Service to include bioheat and biopower, and establishes a new loan program for projects that are not located in a rural utility service territory. Finally, the bill would support continued research into the environmental sustainability and economics of using biomass for heat and power, and would establish a collaborative platform for directing this research across the Departments of Energy and Agriculture. This bill is good for the environment, good for rural jobs, and good for stopping wildfires before they start. I encourage my colleagues to support it. 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 introduce the Bioenergy Act of 2015. Managed in an environmentally responsible way, woody biomass presents a carbon-neutral alternative to fossil fuels for heating and powering homes, schools and businesses. Much of the woody biomass in the U.S. that could be used for energy production is either waste from the forest products industry, or small trees that contribute to the overcrowding of forests and wildfires. In 2013, wildfires burned 4.3 million acres of American forests and rangeland, and the Federal Government spent $1.7 billion to fight them. Additionally, about 2 billion metric tons, or 30 percent, of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions came from fossil fuel use in space heating, water heating or electricity generation for American homes and businesses. Using woody biomass for heat and power can help fund wildfire risk reduction and forest restoration, all while creating low-carbon energy and a stable source of jobs in rural economies across the country. Despite this potential, the U.S. Department of Energy, DOE, has not invested in biomass heat, bioheat, and power, biopower, projects and research. This bill introduces modest steps to develop this resource, learn more about its full potential, and improve interagency coordination between DOE and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA, Forest Service on this topic. Specifically, the bill will establish a competitive cost-share grant program at the Department of Energy to improve technologies for processing woody biomass and bringing down transportation costs, as well as innovative technologies for using biomass for heat and power-- from new power plant designs, to neighborhood heating systems called ``district energy'' systems. The bill also creates a cost-share grant program through the U.S. Forest Service to support proven biomass technologies, like combined heat and power, CHP. To assist with financing, the bill expands a loan program run by the USDA Rural Utilities Service to include bioheat and biopower, and establishes a new loan program for projects that are not located in a rural utility service territory. Finally, the bill would support continued research into the environmental sustainability and economics of using biomass for heat and power, and would establish a collaborative platform for directing this research across the Departments of Energy and Agriculture. This bill is good for the environment, good for rural jobs, and good for stopping wildfires before they start. I encourage my colleagues to support it. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, the majority leader has entered a motion to reconsider the trade legislation. I want to be clear, both for the majority leader and all our colleagues here, that I am very interested in working with the majority leader and our colleague from the other side of the aisle to find a bipartisan path to get back to the trade legislation at the earliest possible time. This morning, 14 protrade Democrats met, and I can assure all the Senators here that these are Senators who are committed--strongly committed--to ensuring that this bill passes. Now, with respect to just another brief description about where we are, all the hard work that the majority leader correctly described as going on in connection with this legislation has been about four bills: the trade promotion act, Customs--which is really trade enforcement to help displaced workers--and then trade preferences for developing countries. Just briefly, I want to describe why it was so important for Senators on a bipartisan basis in the Finance Committee to tackle these issues. The first, trade promotion authority, helps strip the secrecy out of trade policy. The second is the support system for American workers. This is known as trade adjustment assistance, which has been expanded. The third finally puts our trade enforcement policies into high gear so America can crack down on the trade cheats. The fourth renews trade programs that are crucial to American manufacturers. Together, these bills would form a legislative package that throws out the 1990s NAFTA playbook on trade. It is an opportunity to enact fresh, middle-class trade policies that will create high-skill, high-wage jobs in Oregon and across our land. That opportunity is lost if this package of four bills gets winnowed down to two. In particular, dropping the enforcement bill in my view is legislative malpractice. The calculation is quite simple. The Finance Committee gave the Senate a bipartisan trade enforcement bill that will protect American jobs and promote American exports, which are two propositions that I believe every Member of this body supports. The enforcement legislation closes a shameful loophole that allows for products made with forced and child labor to be sold in our country. This is 2015, and there is absolutely no room for a loophole that allows slavery in American trade policies. If the decision is made to drop this bipartisan legislation, that shameful loophole would live on. Now, any Senator who goes home and speaks, as I do, about the virtues of job-creating trade policies has, in my view, a special obligation to ensure that American trade enforcement is tough, effective, and built on American values. That is what the Finance Committee's bipartisan enforcement bill is all about. Without proper enforcement, no trade deal can ever live up to the hype. This enforcement bill is a jobs bill, plain and simple, and it needs to get to the President's desk. Some elements of this package represent priorities that have traditionally belonged to Republicans. Other elements are traditionally Democratic. But taken as a whole, this is a bipartisan package that both sides of the Finance Committee supported strongly, with the understanding that its component parts would be linked together. You can't make this stool stand up with just two legs. The Senate should not begin debate until there is a clear path forward for each of these four bills, and I use that word specifically because I have talked with colleagues about it. We are going to work together in a bipartisan fashion. That is what Chairman Hatch and I have done since he became chairman, and I have been grateful to him because that is the way he sought to carry out his responsibilities when I was chairman. We are going to work together, but the challenge has always been to find a clear path forward for each of these four bills. So I urge my colleagues to continue down the Finance Committee's bipartisan route and find a path that moves all four of these bills forward. In closing, I want to reiterate that with the majority leader having entered into a motion to have the trade bill reconsidered, I want to express to my colleagues--and I see several Finance members here, Chairman Hatch and Senator Cornyn, a senior member of the committee, a member of the leadership--that I am very interested in working closely with both of them to find a bipartisan path and get back to this legislation just as soon as possible. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I listened carefully to the remarks of the Senate majority leader, and I believe the majority leader's statement provides potential--potential--to find the bipartisan common ground on trade that we found in the Senate Finance Committee. In the Senate Finance Committee, we passed the Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities and Accountability Act of 2015 by a 20-to-6 vote and the Trade Adjustment Assistance Act of 2015 by a 17-to-9 vote. We passed a robust trade enforcement measure and package of trade preferences by voice vote. Respectfully, I hope that the majority leader would take this morning to work with those on my side of the aisle who are supportive of trade to find a similar bipartisan approach to ensure that all four of the measures I have described are actually enacted. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the PURPA PLUS Act. In my home State we have numerous emerging small renewable energy technologies, such as wave energy buoys, hydropower turbines in irrigation canals, biomass burning cogeneration facilities and rooftop solar installations. Like Oregon, many States have sought to advance such new electricity technologies by allowing utilities to pay higher than normal power purchase rates, called ``incentive rates'', for power from these desirable technologies. Incentive rates allow individuals and small businesses deploying these desirable technologies to recover the money they invest in the infrastructure, such as solar panels or other electricity generation equipment, over a reasonable period of time. The ability of States to award such incentive rates for small projects is currently hampered by the need to go through a case-by-case review process before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, FERC. The PURPA PLUS Act simply provides States the legal authority to set incentive rates for small renewable energy projects. Currently, under the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978, PURPA, the FERC regulates the price that utility companies pay for electricity from small, independent power providers. Such prices can be no higher than what it would normally cost a utility company either to generate or to buy additional power from the lowest cost provider. This structure sets a limit on prices that is often too low for small renewable energy projects to be financially viable, despite other clear benefits they provide, such as local job creation, lower investment in high-voltage transmission lines, diversity in an area's power generation portfolio, and the environmental benefits of green energy. PURPA PLUS would transfer the authority for setting power purchase rates for small power projects of less than 2 megawatts from FERC to the States on a voluntary basis. If a State chose to exercise this authority to promote small wind energy development, or solar, or cogeneration projects, it could. If a State chose not to use this authority, FERC would continue to regulate these projects as before. By capping the project size at 2 megawatts, PURPA PLUS only extends this new authority for small projects that are providing very small amounts of power to the local utility company, leaving regulation of large wind farms, hydropower and other large renewable energy projects unchanged. While I acknowledge that the power from these small projects may be more expensive than a large central generation station powered by coal or gas, I believe that States, if they choose, should be able to consider the associated benefits of small renewable power and set higher prices, when the market demands such action and when the benefits outweigh the costs. I urge my colleagues to review and ultimately to support this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I am proud to introduce the Smart Grid Act of 2015. America's trillion-dollar electricity grid is ill-equipped to meet the needs of the future. Grid outages and interruptions are estimated to cost taxpayers $150 billion annually, according to the U.S. Department of Energy DOE. At the same time, electricity demand is expected to grow 24 percent by 2040 and electricity costs for American consumers are expected to increase 18 percent over that same period. Yet the news is not all grim, the U.S. Department of Energy estimates that $46 billion to $117 billion could be saved in the avoided construction costs of power plants and transmission lines over 20 years, if the United States transitions to ``smart grid'' technologies. This bill promotes a more efficient and flexible electricity grid--an electricity grid that supports low-cost renewable energy, electric vehicles and energy storage, and helps consumers save money while reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The bill extends cost-share grant programs created in the Energy Independence and Savings Act of 2007, EISA2007, and sets DOE on a path to help create technology communication standards that will pave the way for innovation in new household appliances and save consumer dollars. Specifically, the bill will establish two DOE competitive grant programs to promote the modernization of the electricity grid. Among critical areas identified by the electricity industry, the new authorizations will promote grid efficiency and real time rate adjustments, in addition to driving innovations and deployment of new energy technologies. The grant programs would require an equal matching investment from the grant recipient to ensure that beneficiaries are also held accountable. The grant recipients will be required to exchange information and ideas to further the development of a modernized electric grid. The bill will also direct DOE to begin developing standards for data sharing and communication between electricity users and providers on the grid, to improve grid efficiency and reliability. I encourage my colleagues to review and ultimately support this legislation. 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 rise to introduce the PURPA PLUS Act. In my home State we have numerous emerging small renewable energy technologies, such as wave energy buoys, hydropower turbines in irrigation canals, biomass burning cogeneration facilities and rooftop solar installations. Like Oregon, many States have sought to advance such new electricity technologies by allowing utilities to pay higher than normal power purchase rates, called ``incentive rates'', for power from these desirable technologies. Incentive rates allow individuals and small businesses deploying these desirable technologies to recover the money they invest in the infrastructure, such as solar panels or other electricity generation equipment, over a reasonable period of time. The ability of States to award such incentive rates for small projects is currently hampered by the need to go through a case-by-case review process before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, FERC. The PURPA PLUS Act simply provides States the legal authority to set incentive rates for small renewable energy projects. Currently, under the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978, PURPA, the FERC regulates the price that utility companies pay for electricity from small, independent power providers. Such prices can be no higher than what it would normally cost a utility company either to generate or to buy additional power from the lowest cost provider. This structure sets a limit on prices that is often too low for small renewable energy projects to be financially viable, despite other clear benefits they provide, such as local job creation, lower investment in high-voltage transmission lines, diversity in an area's power generation portfolio, and the environmental benefits of green energy. PURPA PLUS would transfer the authority for setting power purchase rates for small power projects of less than 2 megawatts from FERC to the States on a voluntary basis. If a State chose to exercise this authority to promote small wind energy development, or solar, or cogeneration projects, it could. If a State chose not to use this authority, FERC would continue to regulate these projects as before. By capping the project size at 2 megawatts, PURPA PLUS only extends this new authority for small projects that are providing very small amounts of power to the local utility company, leaving regulation of large wind farms, hydropower and other large renewable energy projects unchanged. While I acknowledge that the power from these small projects may be more expensive than a large central generation station powered by coal or gas, I believe that States, if they choose, should be able to consider the associated benefits of small renewable power and set higher prices, when the market demands such action and when the benefits outweigh the costs. I urge my colleagues to review and ultimately to support this legislation. 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 introduce the Smart Grid Act of 2015. America's trillion-dollar electricity grid is ill-equipped to meet the needs of the future. Grid outages and interruptions are estimated to cost taxpayers $150 billion annually, according to the U.S. Department of Energy DOE. At the same time, electricity demand is expected to grow 24 percent by 2040 and electricity costs for American consumers are expected to increase 18 percent over that same period. Yet the news is not all grim, the U.S. Department of Energy estimates that $46 billion to $117 billion could be saved in the avoided construction costs of power plants and transmission lines over 20 years, if the United States transitions to ``smart grid'' technologies. This bill promotes a more efficient and flexible electricity grid--an electricity grid that supports low-cost renewable energy, electric vehicles and energy storage, and helps consumers save money while reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The bill extends cost-share grant programs created in the Energy Independence and Savings Act of 2007, EISA2007, and sets DOE on a path to help create technology communication standards that will pave the way for innovation in new household appliances and save consumer dollars. Specifically, the bill will establish two DOE competitive grant programs to promote the modernization of the electricity grid. Among critical areas identified by the electricity industry, the new authorizations will promote grid efficiency and real time rate adjustments, in addition to driving innovations and deployment of new energy technologies. The grant programs would require an equal matching investment from the grant recipient to ensure that beneficiaries are also held accountable. The grant recipients will be required to exchange information and ideas to further the development of a modernized electric grid. The bill will also direct DOE to begin developing standards for data sharing and communication between electricity users and providers on the grid, to improve grid efficiency and reliability. I encourage my colleagues to review and ultimately support this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, long ago, I decided the most complimentary statement one could make about an elected official boils down to four simple words: ``That person really cares.'' Those four words perfectly sum up Gretchen Kafoury's long record of public service in Portland and in Oregon. From serving in the Peace Corps during the 1960s to teaching at Portland State University four decades later, Gretchen just cared--and then cared some more--about helping everyone have a better life. Gretchen was the go-to leader in Portland and statewide in the fight to help women escape domestic violence. She was our conscience in the battle to help people of modest means have more affordable housing. And she was a pioneer for equal rights when she organized the campaign to force open the doors at the City Club of Portland for women. Small in stature, Gretchen Kafoury had the biggest heart in Oregon. If you didn't have power or clout or a political action committee--and you were talking about justice, Gretchen brought her smarts, her energy, and her persistence to your cause. I met Gretchen shortly after I graduated from law school at the University of Oregon and was starting the Oregon Gray Panthers with another admirer of Gretchen's--Ruth Haefner. When you visited Ruth's house in Northeast Portland, you would see it filled with literature from progressive seniors for good causes. And I clearly remember how those progressive seniors thought Gretchen was spot on, for example, in developing the first health clinic for teenagers at Roosevelt High School. Gretchen was incredibly helpful to the Gray Panthers in those days when she served in the Oregon Legislature as our State passed a generic drug law, home care for seniors, and new rules to stop rip-off artists scamming health insurance to seniors. Before Gretchen worked to crack down on those scamsters, it was common to see seniors with as many as 8 to 10 worthless health insurance policies that fast-talking salesmen had sold them. Those phony salesmen never stood a chance when Gretchen fought to stop business practices that fleeced the elderly. When I ran for Congress in 1980, virtually no established elected officials were in my corner. Gretchen was one of those folks in a group so tiny it could have fit in a couple of phone booths. I had never run for public office but--with help and encouragement from Gretchen and seniors--I wanted to go to Washington to work on the very issues Gretchen championed. I was proud she was in my corner every step of the way. Over the years when I would see Gretchen at a housing rally, a domestic violence conference, or an event to help nurses and other health care providers get better care for Oregonians at lower cost, I would always see Gretchen and start to smile. That is because her caring was so infectious and her passion to help people who needed help was so powerful. She prompted so many others to become involved in public life, not the least of whom are her two daughters, one of whom is Multnomah County Chair Deborah Kafoury. How lucky all Oregonians were to have Gretchen, and how lucky I was that she was my friend.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise reluctantly against this budget resolution. I want to pick up exactly where our colleague from Illinois left off with respect to the values that are really important for this debate. As I look at this budget, I see opportunities missed that would bring the Senate together, help us find common ground, and particularly help the middle class. The reality is there are tens of millions of people in Oregon and across America who day in and day out walk an economic tightrope, stretching every paycheck to the last penny. They want to climb the ladder of opportunity, they want to give their kids a brighter future, and the climb is not easy. My view is we ought to be trying to write a Federal budget that makes it easier for middle-class people to climb that ladder of opportunity and for those who aren't middle class to start moving up the rungs. This legislation before us misses out on several bipartisan opportunities that reluctantly drive me to say the bill is flawed, because in too many instances, it leaves our working families, our middle class, behind. Let me be specific. I offered, when the budget came up here, an amendment which stipulated that tax reform be built around the needs of our middle class so employers that would hire workers would have an opportunity to hire more, our workers would be able to get child care, and our students would be able to get educated. It was pretty straightforward. It said tax relief should be built around our middle class. A number of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle asked if this would allow for some approaches that they would be interested in. I said of course. Chairman Enzi and I both have the honor to serve on the Senate Committee on Finance, so I offered an amendment that was built around some core ideas, recognizing my colleagues might have other approaches. A number of Republicans voted for that. It got more than 70 votes in the Senate. Today, as we debate this legislation, we don't hear anything about tax relief for middle-class families. As I look at the budget, it sure looks to me, given some of the other priorities, as though there is a real prospect that taxes could go up for our middle-class families, as if they are not getting hammered hard enough. We could be working on a budget proposal today that creates new opportunity for middle-class people, a proposal that includes something such as what was voted on in the Senate that got more than 70 votes. Yet it is not there. A second example deals with rural America. Again, in a lot of our rural communities there is enormous hurt. Many feel the policies of the Federal Government would pretty much turn them into some kind of economic sacrifice zone. So in the Committee on the Budget, I said: I think we have an opportunity to bring together programs such as the Secure Rural Schools Program, the Payment in Lieu of Taxes Program, and the Land and Water Conservation Fund, and we could adopt a smarter approach to fighting wildfires. The fact is that, too, was bipartisan. In the Committee on the Budget, the vote was 18 to 4--an overwhelming 18-to-4 bipartisan vote for the kind of approach I offered which would bring these programs together and put in the budget secure rural schools alongside these other programs that are a rural lifeline. Once again, a bipartisan proposal--a bipartisan proposal that got resounding support in the Senate Committee on the Budget--somehow didn't make its way into the legislation we are considering today. So for communities in my home State, the message is: We are not really going to make your communities a priority. I was just in, for example, Roseburg, OR, which is Southern Oregon, where there are hard-working people who would like to both get the timber harvest up and have the funds for their police and their schools and their roads and basic services. But this budget says that even though in the Committee on the Budget we had something bipartisan to help those communities, gee, we are really not going to follow through. We are just going to have a partisan plan, No. 1; and No. 2, we are going to basically shuffle to the side these bipartisan proposals with respect to middle-class tax relief and rural communities that, in my view, could make a huge difference in the quality of life for millions of American families. Of course, these were bipartisan ideas. Now, a third area that has concerned me about this budget is the need for supporting programs such as Medicare and Social Security that keep millions of Americans from falling through the cracks. With this budget plan, the Congress ought to be protecting Medicaid so Americans of very limited means can count on having access to health care. Yet the budget that is being considered today would make, in my view, needlessly painful, needlessly arbitrary cuts. It just seems as if the budget doesn't recognize that weakening Medicaid will hurt the most vulnerable families in Oregon and across the country--those who are struggling so hard to climb that ladder of opportunity. Without Medicaid coverage, those who are vulnerable end up forgoing checkups. They end up passing on the preventive visits. In my view, they will end up with lesser care at a higher overall cost. A massive burden would end up getting shifted to hospitals and doctors and many Americans who simply pay insurance premiums through their employer. So if we make those kinds of cuts today--the cuts I have described as being arbitrary--we are going to have higher costs and more economic pain down the road. Finally, millions of seniors and those with disabilities rely on Medicaid to help cover what otherwise can be crushing costs--crushing costs--in the long-term care area. I was codirector of the Oregon Gray Panthers for a number of years before I was elected to Congress, and what I have seen over the years are nursing home costs going up and up and up. Even those families who worked hard and saved and never took that extra vacation, never bought that special car ended up being impoverished, and they and those who are disabled simply would not be in a position to get long-term care without Medicaid. Now, we know what used to happen years and years ago. There were poor farms, there were almshouses when savings ran out. It is pretty hard to do that with the demographic revolution of today, with 10,000 people turning 65 every day--10,000 people turning 65 every day for years and years to come. So my view is Medicaid, this lifeline for the most vulnerable people--a lifeline that keeps so many individuals, particularly seniors, from falling into utter destitution--should be protected rather than filleted, as this budget would do, and it is one of the major reasons I am in opposition. I will close by way of saying that I have gotten, over the years, to know Chairman Enzi very well. He is a compassionate legislator. He is a talented legislator. My hope is, though I oppose this budget today for the reasons I have described--the bipartisan opportunities missed with respect to tax relief for the middle class and the rejection of a bipartisan plan to help rural America--that in the days ahead, as we go to the Committee on Finance, in particular, and we look at these issues, we can return to what has always been the Senate at its best, which is working in a bipartisan fashion. We can do it on tax relief. We can do it for rural America. By the way, we can do it in terms of Medicare. We can protect the Medicare guarantee and hold down costs. Our colleague Senator Isakson from Georgia has joined me in an important piece of legislation that really starts to transform Medicare into a program that better meets the needs of those who will most need it, which is those with chronic disease--cancer, diabetes, stroke, and heart disease. But we would be protecting the Medicare guarantee, not, in effect, damaging Medicaid the way this budget would do. Mr. President, I am going to yield the floor now and just state, once again, that I hope we can go back to what makes the Senate function at its best, bipartisanship. We missed that opportunity thus far, and I hope we will return to it. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, when my colleagues and I went to college, things were a lot different. Our colleagues took out loans, but those loans were manageable, and there were jobs waiting after graduation. Today, too often, that is simply not the case. In fact, the majority of students today will leave school weighed down with an average of more than $31,000 in debt. Investment in higher education is an economic imperative. Education is the great equalizer. It enables upward economic mobility and breaks down class structures. A highly skilled and educated workforce is the basis for any healthy economy. It is the foundation of our country's future. In nearly every financial decision Americans make, individuals and families try to evaluate the economic value of that decision. Like prospective homebuyers who inspect and assess the potential value of their future home, students should be able to compare colleges and programs based on what the likely return on their investment will be. Our capital markets work best when there is transparency so we can accurately measure the value of what we choose to invest in. We saw what happens when this is not the case with the burst of the housing bubble. Parts of our economy have yet to recover from the mortgage crisis. Misinformed consumers bought a product based on misleading information and, often times, fell victim to bad loans offered by predatory lenders. Consumers must know what they can expect from their investments. Similarly, students are entitled to know the value of their education before they borrow tens of thousands of dollars from banks and the government to finance their future. Right now, consumers don't have this information. It is unavailable to students and families who are making critical decisions that will impact not only their future--both their financial future and career path--but also the collective future of our country. That is why today, Senator Rubio, Senator Warner and I are introducing an updated version of the Student Right to Know Before You Go Act which will help inform consumers and prevent market failures. This proposal would ensure future students and their families can make well-informed decisions by creating a market in which specific schools and specific programs can be evaluated based on the average annual earnings and employment outcomes of graduates; rates of remedial enrollment and success of students that participate in remedial education; the percent of students that receive Federal, State, and institutional grant aid or loans by source; the average amount of total Federal loan debt of students upon graduation; the average amount of total Federal loan debt for students that do not complete a program; transfer success rates; and rates at which students continue on to higher levels of education. The Department of Education has created a College Scorecard which is a step in the right direction. The Scorecard, however, does not fully capture any of the metrics outlined above. The Wyden-Rubio-Warner bill generates this critical information. Markets fail when there is too little information and until now, it has been impossible to collect this data in a cost-effective way while ensuring student privacy. This proposal makes it possible to secure a return on investment--for students, parents, policymakers, and taxpayers--while creating a workforce that meets the demands of today's businesses and ensures that American workers can successfully compete in the global economy.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, when my colleagues and I went to college, things were a lot different. Our colleagues took out loans, but those loans were manageable, and there were jobs waiting after graduation. Today, too often, that is simply not the case. In fact, the majority of students today will leave school weighed down with an average of more than $31,000 in debt. Investment in higher education is an economic imperative. Education is the great equalizer. It enables upward economic mobility and breaks down class structures. A highly skilled and educated workforce is the basis for any healthy economy. It is the foundation of our country's future. In nearly every financial decision Americans make, individuals and families try to evaluate the economic value of that decision. Like prospective homebuyers who inspect and assess the potential value of their future home, students should be able to compare colleges and programs based on what the likely return on their investment will be. Our capital markets work best when there is transparency so we can accurately measure the value of what we choose to invest in. We saw what happens when this is not the case with the burst of the housing bubble. Parts of our economy have yet to recover from the mortgage crisis. Misinformed consumers bought a product based on misleading information and, often times, fell victim to bad loans offered by predatory lenders. Consumers must know what they can expect from their investments. Similarly, students are entitled to know the value of their education before they borrow tens of thousands of dollars from banks and the government to finance their future. Right now, consumers don't have this information. It is unavailable to students and families who are making critical decisions that will impact not only their future--both their financial future and career path--but also the collective future of our country. That is why today, Senator Rubio, Senator Warner and I are introducing an updated version of the Student Right to Know Before You Go Act which will help inform consumers and prevent market failures. This proposal would ensure future students and their families can make well-informed decisions by creating a market in which specific schools and specific programs can be evaluated based on the average annual earnings and employment outcomes of graduates; rates of remedial enrollment and success of students that participate in remedial education; the percent of students that receive Federal, State, and institutional grant aid or loans by source; the average amount of total Federal loan debt of students upon graduation; the average amount of total Federal loan debt for students that do not complete a program; transfer success rates; and rates at which students continue on to higher levels of education. The Department of Education has created a College Scorecard which is a step in the right direction. The Scorecard, however, does not fully capture any of the metrics outlined above. The Wyden-Rubio-Warner bill generates this critical information. Markets fail when there is too little information and until now, it has been impossible to collect this data in a cost-effective way while ensuring student privacy. This proposal makes it possible to secure a return on investment--for students, parents, policymakers, and taxpayers--while creating a workforce that meets the demands of today's businesses and ensures that American workers can successfully compete in the global economy.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, modern transportation infrastructure is a critical building block to ensure that the U.S. economy is in a position for long term growth and prosperity. It creates jobs, draws investment and supports overall global competitiveness. With the deadline for the Highway Trust Fund reauthorization looming just a month away, we are faced with the reality that our crumbling transportation systems simply are not up to the job. Our aging infrastructure impacts everyone. Every day, Americans leave their homes to commute to work or school only to be faced with more than just snarled traffic, but roads in dire need of repair. More than one-fifth of U.S. roads are in poor condition, with nearly one-half trillion dollars in needed repairs across the country over the next decade. U.S. ports, a critical economic doorway, are struggling under the weight of increased cargo traffic, leading to congestion and slowing exports. They now require nearly $30 billion in landside investment alone to keep up with the general demands they are under. Our national infrastructure is in a clear state of decline, demanding $3.6 trillion in total investment by 2020, according to the American Society of Civil Engineers. For one of the largest economies in the world known for its strength and leadership, we are falling behind other countries. Our infrastructure spending has continued to decline since 1960. It is now at less than two percent of GDP annually. That falls behind China's nine percent and Europe's five. Meanwhile, our population continues to grow, placing new demands on our aging transportation system. How do we get back on track and safeguard the health of our transportation infrastructure? The first step is for Congress to ensure the solvency of the trust funds for highways, transit, airports, ports, and waterways. Critical infrastructure projects demand long term planning and certainty, not a continual cycle of start-stop efforts. We must aim for a long-term, bipartisan solution so that every year states don't have to put projects on hold for fear of running out of funds. Second, its time Congress looked beyond Washington and bring the private sector to the table to spur new financing partnerships that support our infrastructure needs. There is an untapped opportunity here: Standard and Poor's estimates that private investors could provide more than $100 billion in infrastructure investment each year. Public-private partnerships, P3s, are unique in that they offer upfront capital financing, along with the transfer of risk to the private partner, allowing for more efficient project design, construction and maintenance. P3s have been successful in the U.S., as well as other countries around the world. Recognizing this pressing need and opportunity, today Senator Hoeven and I are introducing the Move America program. Move America is designed to strengthen our transportation system by making it easier for the states to put together P3s and draw private investment. This unique, bipartisan driven proposal complements federal funding efforts, by creating cheaper and more effective financing tools to expand investment in roads, bridges, transit, ports, rail, and airports. Move America expands tax exempt private activity bonds and creates a new infrastructure tax credit, giving stakeholders significant flexibility to pursue infrastructure projects that are badly needed in states and localities. And these tools are available for use regardless of who owns the project--government or private groups--making financing, management, and leasing arrangements much simpler. The bonds also exempt the interest income from the alternative minimum tax, making it an attractive proposal to investors. For states that are hesitant to issue more debt, or that are looking to leverage more private equity, Move America credits would be available for the state to attract equity investors for infrastructure projects. The credits are available to the extent there is at least twice as much private investment in the project. This one-to-one match leverages additional equity investment at a lower cost to states and cities, lowering their capital costs or allowing them to reduce tolls or other revenues required for the project. Critical transportation projects come to life in less time and at less cost to taxpayers. Americans can travel on safer footing. The private sector finds a new investment opportunity. Strengthening our country's transportation infrastructure shouldn't be a political issue. It is time we come together and create a path to move America forward and build the 21st century infrastructure that our country deserves.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, modern transportation infrastructure is a critical building block to ensure that the U.S. economy is in a position for long term growth and prosperity. It creates jobs, draws investment and supports overall global competitiveness. With the deadline for the Highway Trust Fund reauthorization looming just a month away, we are faced with the reality that our crumbling transportation systems simply are not up to the job. Our aging infrastructure impacts everyone. Every day, Americans leave their homes to commute to work or school only to be faced with more than just snarled traffic, but roads in dire need of repair. More than one-fifth of U.S. roads are in poor condition, with nearly one-half trillion dollars in needed repairs across the country over the next decade. U.S. ports, a critical economic doorway, are struggling under the weight of increased cargo traffic, leading to congestion and slowing exports. They now require nearly $30 billion in landside investment alone to keep up with the general demands they are under. Our national infrastructure is in a clear state of decline, demanding $3.6 trillion in total investment by 2020, according to the American Society of Civil Engineers. For one of the largest economies in the world known for its strength and leadership, we are falling behind other countries. Our infrastructure spending has continued to decline since 1960. It is now at less than two percent of GDP annually. That falls behind China's nine percent and Europe's five. Meanwhile, our population continues to grow, placing new demands on our aging transportation system. How do we get back on track and safeguard the health of our transportation infrastructure? The first step is for Congress to ensure the solvency of the trust funds for highways, transit, airports, ports, and waterways. Critical infrastructure projects demand long term planning and certainty, not a continual cycle of start-stop efforts. We must aim for a long-term, bipartisan solution so that every year states don't have to put projects on hold for fear of running out of funds. Second, its time Congress looked beyond Washington and bring the private sector to the table to spur new financing partnerships that support our infrastructure needs. There is an untapped opportunity here: Standard and Poor's estimates that private investors could provide more than $100 billion in infrastructure investment each year. Public-private partnerships, P3s, are unique in that they offer upfront capital financing, along with the transfer of risk to the private partner, allowing for more efficient project design, construction and maintenance. P3s have been successful in the U.S., as well as other countries around the world. Recognizing this pressing need and opportunity, today Senator Hoeven and I are introducing the Move America program. Move America is designed to strengthen our transportation system by making it easier for the states to put together P3s and draw private investment. This unique, bipartisan driven proposal complements federal funding efforts, by creating cheaper and more effective financing tools to expand investment in roads, bridges, transit, ports, rail, and airports. Move America expands tax exempt private activity bonds and creates a new infrastructure tax credit, giving stakeholders significant flexibility to pursue infrastructure projects that are badly needed in states and localities. And these tools are available for use regardless of who owns the project--government or private groups--making financing, management, and leasing arrangements much simpler. The bonds also exempt the interest income from the alternative minimum tax, making it an attractive proposal to investors. For states that are hesitant to issue more debt, or that are looking to leverage more private equity, Move America credits would be available for the state to attract equity investors for infrastructure projects. The credits are available to the extent there is at least twice as much private investment in the project. This one-to-one match leverages additional equity investment at a lower cost to states and cities, lowering their capital costs or allowing them to reduce tolls or other revenues required for the project. Critical transportation projects come to life in less time and at less cost to taxpayers. Americans can travel on safer footing. The private sector finds a new investment opportunity. Strengthening our country's transportation infrastructure shouldn't be a political issue. It is time we come together and create a path to move America forward and build the 21st century infrastructure that our country deserves.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, the construction industry plays a major role in promoting economic growth, employing workers across a variety of trades, and literally building communities. It is a noble profession, yet today it remains one of the most dangerous occupations. Building codes and workplace safety regulations have made great strides but there is more to be done. We all share a responsibility to ensure that men and women who offer their most valuable asset--their labor-- not only earn fair wages but also work in safe environments so they can safely return home after every shift. I am proud that in my hometown of Portland, OR, various public, private and nonprofit stakeholders have formed the SafeBuild Alliance to promote and share best practices for worksite safety. This collaboration is so important because we know that with proper planning, communication and controls, reducing workplace injuries and fatalities is not only possible, it is already happening. The SafeBuild Alliance is leading the way with its Zero Incidents Through Collaboration initiative, which facilitates safe performance by promoting the sharing of best practices among industry professionals. From general contractors to property owners, public and private entities, architects and engineers, to building and construction trade associations, industry vendors and insurers--everyone has a role in promoting safe worksites. It is my great privilege to recognize the Safebuild Alliance for their work and advocacy for safe workplaces on behalf of all our workers engaged in the construction industry. Safety must be priority No. 1, every job, every day. And to further heighten awareness, I am pleased to offer my support in the official observance of May 3 to 9, 2015 as Construction Industry Safety Week.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I wish to honor an icon in Oregon's legal community and a long-time friend who passed away on March 1. Dick Ginsburg was a long-time resident of the small Washington County community of Cornelius, and a founding member of the Oregon chapter of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, AILA. Dick was one of those rare human beings who brought both reason and compassion to every issue on which he worked. And I know everyone who met Dick will always remember his engaging smile, his joyful enthusiasm and that infectious laughter--regardless of the issue. Dick often referred to the lifelong impact he felt from his experience in the Peace Corps in Paraguay, surely much of it attributable to his loving wife of 40 years who he met there, Rosalia. Along with their wonderful children, Brian and Laura, the Ginsburg family was always exceptionally generous and created an extended family, not only in Oregon, but everywhere he went. As a friend during my early days at Legal Aid, Dick showed himself to be a thoughtful, compassionate, and dedicated lawyer. He understood the intricacies of immigration law and devoted his life to making it work with equal justice for businesses and people alike. While Dick will be remembered by all whose lives he touched, I will especially remember my friend as a mentor, a guiding force, and one of those people who made the world a better place just for being here.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today on the 45th anniversary of Earth Day, I am proud to introduce a pair of bills, S. 1057 and S. 1058, to promote clean energy and fight climate change. The first bill is the Geothermal Energy Opportunities Act, or GEO Act for short. Clean, low-carbon geothermal energy can play a starring role in the fight against climate change, and this legislation encourages the development of the geothermal resource in a number of important ways. The GEO Act helps prospective geothermal developers explore for and develop geothermal resources through a public-private grant program. As part of the partnership, developers report their findings, contributing to a nationwide map of geothermal potential that will reduce the risk and drive down the cost of geothermal energy for the future. In many cases, Federal lands already under production for oil and gas also have a geothermal resource, and the GEO Act allows for the oil and gas leaseholders to coproduce such geothermal energy without going through an additional competitive lease process. It also fully incorporates the bipartisan Geothermal Production Expansion Act that I introduced with a number of my colleagues earlier this year. That provision would streamline the Federal geothermal leasing program to prevent speculative bidders from unproductively driving up the price of leases for developers of geothermal ``hot spots'' that extend into lands directly adjacent to their existing geothermal lease. The Bureau of Land Management, which manages geothermal projects on Federal land under lease agreements, estimates about 250 million acres of Federal land contains geothermal power potential. Geothermal energy projects that are producing geothermal power under the BLM's management make up about half of the total geothermal generating capacity in the United States. The GEO Act takes important steps to speed the development of this tremendous clean energy potential on public lands. I am also introducing the Marine and Hydrokinetic Renewable Energy Act of 2015, along with my colleagues Senators Merkley, Schatz, and King, to spur development of renewable electricity from the water power in oceans, rivers, and lakes. This bill reauthorizes the Department of Energy's marine renewable energy programs, including the national marine renewable energy research, development and demonstration centers around the country, one of which is run by Oregon State University in my home state. The Department of Energy estimates that there is enough potential energy in these nontraditional forms of hydropower to one day power millions of homes. These two pieces of legislation will each promote the production of clean, domestic energy resources and in doing so help the United States lead the world in the fight against climate change. I strongly urge my colleagues to support both of them. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today on the 45th anniversary of Earth Day, I am proud to introduce a pair of bills, S. 1057 and S. 1058, to promote clean energy and fight climate change. The first bill is the Geothermal Energy Opportunities Act, or GEO Act for short. Clean, low-carbon geothermal energy can play a starring role in the fight against climate change, and this legislation encourages the development of the geothermal resource in a number of important ways. The GEO Act helps prospective geothermal developers explore for and develop geothermal resources through a public-private grant program. As part of the partnership, developers report their findings, contributing to a nationwide map of geothermal potential that will reduce the risk and drive down the cost of geothermal energy for the future. In many cases, Federal lands already under production for oil and gas also have a geothermal resource, and the GEO Act allows for the oil and gas leaseholders to coproduce such geothermal energy without going through an additional competitive lease process. It also fully incorporates the bipartisan Geothermal Production Expansion Act that I introduced with a number of my colleagues earlier this year. That provision would streamline the Federal geothermal leasing program to prevent speculative bidders from unproductively driving up the price of leases for developers of geothermal ``hot spots'' that extend into lands directly adjacent to their existing geothermal lease. The Bureau of Land Management, which manages geothermal projects on Federal land under lease agreements, estimates about 250 million acres of Federal land contains geothermal power potential. Geothermal energy projects that are producing geothermal power under the BLM's management make up about half of the total geothermal generating capacity in the United States. The GEO Act takes important steps to speed the development of this tremendous clean energy potential on public lands. I am also introducing the Marine and Hydrokinetic Renewable Energy Act of 2015, along with my colleagues Senators Merkley, Schatz, and King, to spur development of renewable electricity from the water power in oceans, rivers, and lakes. This bill reauthorizes the Department of Energy's marine renewable energy programs, including the national marine renewable energy research, development and demonstration centers around the country, one of which is run by Oregon State University in my home state. The Department of Energy estimates that there is enough potential energy in these nontraditional forms of hydropower to one day power millions of homes. These two pieces of legislation will each promote the production of clean, domestic energy resources and in doing so help the United States lead the world in the fight against climate change. I strongly urge my colleagues to support both of them. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, continuing my reservation, I don't take a backseat to anyone when it comes to fighting for the victims of sex trafficking. As the distinguished Senator from Texas knows, I was an original cosponsor of this legislation, and much of it is based on bills I have written and advocated on behalf of for years, including with the distinguished Senator from Texas. Much of this sex trafficking legislation, colleagues, is based on meetings and discussions I have had for years with young women who have been trafficked, law enforcement officials, and community leaders. I remember like it was yesterday how I was with the Portland police on 82nd Avenue in East Portland, and we encountered young women in their early teens who walked around with knives in their purses just hoping to survive the evening. The underlying legislation before us, in my view, is going to be a very valuable tool in helping women like those whom I saw in Southeast Portland. Unfortunately, an amendment that Senator Kirk seeks to offer has been attached to this request that undermines the legal foundation of every social media platform and attacks a basic cornerstone of Internet law. The Kirk amendment will undermine the fight to help victims by distracting the focus of prosecutors from the pimps and the Johns who prey on these young women. The vague language in the Kirk amendment would mean any Web site that hosts user-generated contact--that means any social media platform, any news sites with comments and classified sections and any e-commerce sites--could face felony charges based on a vague concept of knowing and a vague concept of advertising. Instead of focusing resources on going after pimps and traffickers, the Kirk amendment would enable prosecutors to go after Web sites millions of Americans use for nonnefarious purposes, chilling innovation. Under current law, prosecutors already have the ability to go after any entity that knowingly profits from sex trafficking. Every minute our prosecutors are occupied going after legitimate businesses, in my view, is time not spent locking up the real criminals. This amendment hurts America's innovative businesses and entrepreneurs and stifles free speech instead of getting tough on the sex traffickers whom Senator Cornyn and I have sought to target all these years. So I will close by simply saying I am for throwing the book at every sex trafficker and those who enable them. Our country absolutely must do everything we can to prevent the next child from falling victim to these predators. In my view, the Kirk amendment distracts from that goal. I hope it will not ultimately be added to this important piece of legislation. I hope Senators will vote no on the Kirk amendment. With that, Mr. President, I withdraw my reservation to the request.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, would the majority leader consider at this time modifying his request to drop the Kirk amendment No. 273?