Ron Wyden

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, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for up to 15 minutes.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, this morning, in the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, there was a very valuable hearing on a bipartisan piece of legislation called the Sportsmen's Act, obviously designed to promote hunting and fishing activities which are so important to Oregonians and something our people just enjoy immensely. I was not able to sit through the whole hearing because we had important business in the Finance Committee, but I got a flavor of it by listening to parts of it here and there. When it came to my turn to ask questions, I pointed out that one cannot go into the woods and hunt and fish if the woods are burning up. My sense is--particularly after what I learned last weekend--that is exactly what we are going to be facing, particularly in the West, and we are going to be facing it sooner rather than later. We all know the Senate left on Wednesday in order to avoid the snowstorms, so I basically flew all night to make it to Medford, OR, for a fire briefing on Thursday. The idea that we would need to have a fire briefing in March was pretty much unheard of years ago. The fire season was something we faced in the summer or maybe in the early summer we would have a briefing on the challenges and what resources the local officials and Forest Service would need, such as tankers and the like. Fires are now a year-round proposition. They are getting bigger, hotter, lasting longer, and they are infernos. What I was told last week in my home State in Medford is that they are facing the driest fire season in 25 years. They took out the map and showed us California, which looks bone dry. After that eye-opening briefing, I went on to Lane County, which is closer to Portland. It is further up the valley. They said they had the least snow in 10 years and so they were just as concerned as Medford. Malheur County has already asked our Governor to declare a State drought emergency due to record low snowpack and below average water runoff, and these drought declarations usually don't come until months and months later. One of the reasons I wanted to come to the floor is to highlight how serious this fire season is going to be. This ought to be a wake-up call for all Americans because this is going to put pressure on scarce resources, in my view, like we have never seen before. These firefighters, as the Presiding Officer knows, are incredibly dedicated and patriotic people. But when we have fires in multiple areas, trying to move resources around quickly becomes a huge challenge, and it is particularly challenging when the system of fighting wildfires in America is broken. I can't describe it any other way than it being essentially broken and badly in need of repair. The heart of the problem is that Federal policy has consistently shorted the prevention accounts. So what they need to do is go in there and thin forests out and deal with underbrush, such as small trees that pose the greatest risk of fire, and those accounts have been shortchanged for quite some time. It gets hotter and drier on the forest floor. We can have a debate about why that is. I happen to think climate change is a part of it, others will cite other considerations, but what is indisputable is what is happening. It is hotter, drier, and in our part of the country there are frequent lightning strikes which can cause an inferno that leaps across Federal and State and private lines. When we have a huge fire on our hands, often what happens is the government runs out of money to fight that megafire, and the handful of others like it, so the government then--really the agencies--borrow from the prevention fund in order to put the fire out, and the problem just gets worse and worse and worse. What Senator Crapo and I have proposed in the Senate--and there is a similar bipartisan effort in the House--is to change that. What we have said is that it is time for the government to fight these megafires-- just the 1 percent or so of megafires--from the disaster account and not shortchange the prevention fund because that is how we prevent these infernos from taking place. We go in there and do the thinning, we deal with the small trees and underbrush, and we prevent those big fires. The budget office has actually given us an analysis that this is pretty close to a wash from a budget standpoint, because if we only fight those megafires--the 1 or 2 percent--and we get solid, substantial benefits from prevention because we have prevented a megafire, we really have not added to the budget. By clearing away the fuels and reducing both the number and intensity of future fires, reducing the amount of fuel on the ground simply makes it easier for our courageous firefighters to stop a fire in its tracks. I brought this poster to the floor this afternoon. It is not too hard to tell what the benefits are when we actually go out and receive these fuel treatments. It is clear this is a useful tool for holding down the damage for communities and taxpayers. These fuel treatments can be particularly beneficial for reducing wildfires and protecting our populated areas. My hope is that now we are finally starting to see what this fire season is going to be like, that focusing on prevention and not raiding the prevention fund to deal with those 1 percent of the megafires will help us get out ahead of the problem instead of spending substantially more money and trying to play catchup as the infernos rip their way through the West. I will close by saying that I think the bill Senator Crapo and I have introduced is not the only answer to what we are going to be dealing with this fire season, but it is an important one. Another approach I think makes a great deal of sense is the Forest Service Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Programs because, again, these help bring together people of differing political views and differing philosophies to clear flammable materials from our forests while producing saleable timber for the mills. In the Malheur National Forest in my home State, for one, the Southern Blues Collaborative Project is a real success story. The stewardship contracts there not only helped clear the forests of unhealthy snags and hazardous wildfire fuels, they helped to bring the Malheur Lumber Company mill back from the brink of closure at least once. There is an effort at the U.S. Department of Agriculture to encourage these collaborative partnerships across the country. I commend the Department of Agriculture, Chief Tidwell in particular, for these collaboratives because they are vital to the health and vitality of our country's forests, and they are a solid foundation for wildfire response. I would also like to thank the President and the Forest Service for supporting the bipartisan efforts of Senator Crapo and me, and a similar one that is underway in the House. To me, the bottom line is if we can pass the legislation I have described here today and shore up our priority as being prevention while, at the same time, making better use of existing money by saving the megafires we deal with for the disaster fund, that gets us off to the races in terms of having a more sensible system for fighting wildfires; then, if we support the collaboratives I have just described that are really floundering across the country, and we are seeing more of them, we are seeing bigger collaboratives; that is the kind of policy that helps us get out in front of what is going to be, in my view, another dangerous fire season. If we are just crossing our fingers and hoping somehow this fire season isn't going to be as bad as I was told last week in Medford and in Eugene--that doesn't make any sense to me, particularly given some of the other activities in the Senate that have been bipartisan priorities. That is why I felt compelled to come to the floor this afternoon because of the hearing this morning on sportsmen. We want to have those opportunities for sportsmen and fishermen and all of the people who want to use our great natural resources. They are part of our heritage and they are a big shot in the arm economically as well. We are not going to be able to go into those woods this summer to hunt and fish if they are burning up. So I am very hopeful we can quickly pass the bipartisan legislation to change the way in which we fight wildfires, that we can shore up our collaboratives which, dollar for dollar, are about as useful as anything that is done in the natural resources area. I encourage my colleagues this afternoon, given what is looking us in the eye with respect to this fire season, to join me in fixing the wildfire budget and encouraging collaborative partnerships that get us out in front of the fires and end this catastrophic growth of wildfires, particularly in the Western United States. Mr. President, I note that one of my colleagues is ready to speak. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

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

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, tomorrow morning the Supreme Court is going to hear oral arguments in King v. Burwell. The Supreme Court's ruling could have sweeping consequences for the well-being of millions of Americans and for our Nation's entire health care system. The issue at hand is whether Americans who receive the opportunity to buy quality health insurance, thanks to the Affordable Care Act, can get assistance in paying for that care. The law gives our States a choice. Our States can design and manage an insurance exchange on their own or they can allow their citizens to shop on a federally run exchange. Furthermore, the law created tax credits to help Americans afford the cost of health insurance. Thirty-six States took the Federal option. Eighty-seven percent of the people who signed up in those States get some measure of assistance so as to better afford coverage. However, the petitioners in King v. Burwell argue that those Americans should be denied any assistance. In my view, the answer is simple. Let's help those who are in need. Let's not go back to that time in America when health care was for the healthy and for the wealthy. If one flips on C-SPAN and listens to the Congress debate and question the administration, one might hear something wildly different. Some Members of Congress seem to be rooting for Americans to lose their subsidies and consequently their access to affordable health coverage. In fact, Members of Congress have filed briefs with the Supreme Court making essentially that argument. At the same time, they have asked how the Obama administration would clean up the aftermath. To me, that is like pouring gasoline on a fire and then indignantly demanding that somebody else go put it out. There is no question the law's implementation has at times been a challenge. That is true of all major legislation. It is clear there ought to be bipartisan interest in continuing to improve the law. But the reality has been what we have had is a wornout, 6-year-old fight over the Affordable Care Act. The act's core purpose, which has been clear from the outset, is to help as many of our people get affordable, high-quality health insurance as possible, and the tax credits are absolutely key to making that work. In this case, those tax credits are in question. To make their argument, the King petitioners scoured the text of the law and plucked out one obscure phrase buried in the text. That phrase is ``established by the State,'' relating to how the tax credits are calculated. According to the petitioners, those four words--that one small phrase--is enough to put millions of Americans in danger of losing their health insurance. The petitioners are arguing, against common sense and the actual text and intent of the Affordable Care Act, that the intent was supposed to deprive millions of struggling families and individuals of affordable health care coverage. In my view, this should not be a difficult case for our Supreme Court to decide. Looking at the law itself, the text is clear. To cite some examples, when a State declines to establish an exchange, the Federal Government is directed to fill in and establish ``such exchange.'' This makes sure insurance coverage and tax credits become available to any ``applicable taxpayer,'' regardless of where that taxpayer might live. Furthermore, the information used to calculate the subsidies is gathered from everybody who buys an insurance plan. That would be unnecessary if Americans in only some States were eligible for the tax credits. On top of that, it is a firmly established principle of statutory construction that when interpreting a provision of a law, a court should read the provision in context, not in isolation. It should consider how the part fits into the whole. As the Supreme Court has said, it is a ``fundamental canon of statutory construction that the words of a statute must be read in their context and with a view to their place in the overall statutory scheme.'' Here, looking at the overall statutory scheme, in my view there is only one plausible explanation. States have the option of establishing exchanges. If they decline, the Federal Government will establish an exchange for them. It was written that way so everyone who needs assistance and meets the relevant qualifications can receive that assistance. In my view, we just can't reach any other conclusion. Without the broadest possible access to health insurance--and financial assistance for those who need it--the system would simply be at risk. The interpretation made by the petitioners makes absolutely no sense in the context of the overall statutory approach. It would contradict the fundamental purpose of the Affordable Care Act which, as stated in the title, is to provide ``quality, affordable health care for all Americans.'' Finally, a statute should be interpreted under the assumption that as the Court has said: ``Congress . . . does not . . . hide elephants in mouseholes.'' Congress does not slip major rules, which have huge ramifications, into obscure corners of the law. In this case, Congress would not slip a major rule denying tax credits to millions--what would in effect be a poison pill--the Congress would not slip that deep into a line that simply defines the term ``coverage month.'' Furthermore, there is no evidence in the legislative history to support what I consider to be a warped reading of the law by the petitioners. If the Congress intended for the tax credits to help only some Americans, the Congress would have said that. The issue would have come up in committee hearings and markups and press conferences or in debates in the Senate or in the other body. It would have been reflected in fact sheets and in press releases that were made available to the public. It would have come up in committee reports that accompanied the bill's long journey through the Congress. It never did, not even once. The only way to get to the petitioners' view is by cherry-picking and contorting a four-word phrase. Look at the long record of analysis provided by the trusted nonpartisan staffs of the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation. We rely on them. They are bipartisan. They are nonpartisan. It was their job to do the math, to score the bills and figure out exactly what the economic impacts would be. In every analysis and in every communication the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation had with the Congress, they correctly presumed that tax credits would be available to all who qualified. The tables and reports prepared by the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation are all online. So what I have said can be backed up, and anyone can read those materials. In my view, the petitioner's argument in this case is weak and the text of the law and congressional intent is clear. But, still, the wrong decision could make quality health insurance suddenly unaffordable for millions of Americans from one end of the country to the other. The negative effects of that ruling would radiate throughout our health care system. Recent studies of this case have suggested that the cost of insurance could soar upward for more than 7 million Americans. Only those most in danger of needing serious medical assistance would remain insured. The cost of insurance premiums, particularly in the individual market, would skyrocket for all. As a result, a crisis that would begin with 7 million people could grow to affect 8, 9 or 10 million and perhaps even more. In my view, it would send our country back to those dark days when health care in America was for the healthy and the wealthy. That is what the Affordable Care Act is intended to prevent. That is not what the American people want. The Federal Government, independent health care organizations, and those whose insurance is at stake all agree--the tax credits are meant for all. Even America's Health Insurance Plans, the trade association representing the Nation's largest insurers, takes that view. It wrote in a brief filed with the Court that eliminating the subsidies ``would leave consumers in those states with a more unstable market and far higher costs than if the ACA had not been enacted. . . . '' The only groups that argue otherwise are essentially political partisans that want to see the Affordable Care Act brought down at any cost. These arguments, in my view, are baseless, and they pose a serious danger to the health of millions of Americans--those in our country who went far too long without access to quality, affordable health care and who have it now with the Affordable Care Act. I strongly hope the Supreme Court will take a conservative approach in its ruling--a conservative approach--and reject the challenge to the law. Then Congress can get on with the important business of bringing both sides together to improve the law where it needs to be improved and address the other important needs of America's health care system. With that, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, this month marks another important anniversary for many Bahrainis. Four years ago, more than a 100,000 people took to the streets of Manama, camping out at Pearl Roundabout and peacefully protesting their lack of access to Bahrain's political system and their government's abuse of basic human rights. Bahrain's rulers responded to these calls for reform as authoritarian regimes so often do: with force. In the years since, an estimated 3,000 Bahrainis have been arrested, more than 150 protestors have been killed and more than 100 people have had their citizenship revoked. Indeed, the Bahraini regime continues to go to great lengths to stifle peaceful protest and quell any dissent by closing down media outlets and filling up already overcrowded prisons with political prisoners and human rights defenders. While many Bahrainis feel their struggle has been forgotten by the world, I want them to know that it will not go unremembered or unmarked here in the U.S. Senate. The regime continues to go to great lengths to convince the world that it is making progress but I am sad to report that I cannot share that conclusion. Not while the regime refuses to permit a visit by Juan Mendez, the U.N.'s top torture investigator. Not while opposition leaders sit in Bahraini jails. And not while the State Department's last Human Rights Report lists abuses that include ``restrictions on civil liberties,'' ``arbitrary deprivation of life,'' and ``arrest and detention of protesters on vague charges, in some cases leading to their torture in detention.'' Four years after the peaceful protests began, Bahrain's rulers continue to commit human rights violations while taking only superficial steps toward a meaningful political solution. As a result, several attempts to conclude a national dialogue among Bahrain's interests and parties have only resulted in stalemate. Unsurprisingly, the regime cracked down on the largest political opposition bloc in the lead-up to the November 2014 elections, resulting in a large-scale boycott of the election by voters. The regime arrested a senior opposition leader 1 month later, an action that the State Department warned ``will only inflame tensions'' and further dampen potential for a renewed political dialogue. The regime responded not by releasing that leader, but by doubling down and moving to criminalize the political party he leads. On this somber anniversary, I want to take the occasion to urge the Bahraini regime to implement true and meaningful reforms, to cease the use of violence and repression against peaceful protesters, and to engage in credible dialogue about the future of Bahrain. To be clear, my aim is not to dictate to Bahrain's rulers what their government ought to look like; indeed, those decisions can only be made by the people of Bahrain. But Bahrain has long been an ally of the United States, and I believe this country has an obligation to hold friends to a higher standard. To those who will say that human rights abuses are bad but that stability and cooperation in the region must come before such concerns, I say that you are offering a false choice. I worry there will come a day when peaceful protesters, seeing no hope for redress, ask themselves if they, too, should not resort to violence. Indeed, the prospect of further violence and instability--or full-blown civil war-- could have a profound impact on regional security and on the thousands of United States military personnel stationed in Bahrain. That is why I will continue coming down to this floor on this sad anniversary and keep using my voice in this body to raise awareness of this important issue.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I am proud to introduce the Secure Rural Schools and Payment in Lieu of Taxes Repair Act with my colleague Senator Crapo. The bill will ensure that counties across the nation will have three more years of Secure Rural Schools, SRS, payments. Additionally, the bill would restore mandatory funding for Payment in Lieu of Taxes, PILT. Because Congress failed to take action to reauthorize SRS before the end of the 113th Congress, counties across the country received SRS payments this week that represent a fraction of last year's payment, leaving counties struggling to find ways to fund schools, roads, and emergency services this year. Without certainty and stability, counties will be forced to make cuts to essential services, leaving residents and communities reeling. County payments are a lifeline for cash- strapped rural communities that are already facing shortfalls to pave roads, keep teachers in schools and firefighters on call. This bipartisan bill keeps up the commitment the government made to support rural counties in Oregon and across the country. I am glad to once again partner with Senator Crapo to get this vital legislation across the finish line. Right now, this bill is not funded. It will be. Senator Crapo and I will work with our colleagues to find funding for these important programs that is satisfactory to the left and to the right. Funding for counties is an issue that impacts almost every State in the country. As Congress considers this bill, I ask my colleagues to talk to county leaders in their home states, visit local communities struggling to fund critical services, and find out how SRS and PILT impact their budgets, their priorities, and their quality of life. Rural communities deserve better than to have politics delay funding for SRS, so I urge my colleagues to join Senator Crapo and me in our efforts to reauthorize this critical program.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I am proud to introduce the Secure Rural Schools and Payment in Lieu of Taxes Repair Act with my colleague Senator Crapo. The bill will ensure that counties across the nation will have three more years of Secure Rural Schools, SRS, payments. Additionally, the bill would restore mandatory funding for Payment in Lieu of Taxes, PILT. Because Congress failed to take action to reauthorize SRS before the end of the 113th Congress, counties across the country received SRS payments this week that represent a fraction of last year's payment, leaving counties struggling to find ways to fund schools, roads, and emergency services this year. Without certainty and stability, counties will be forced to make cuts to essential services, leaving residents and communities reeling. County payments are a lifeline for cash- strapped rural communities that are already facing shortfalls to pave roads, keep teachers in schools and firefighters on call. This bipartisan bill keeps up the commitment the government made to support rural counties in Oregon and across the country. I am glad to once again partner with Senator Crapo to get this vital legislation across the finish line. Right now, this bill is not funded. It will be. Senator Crapo and I will work with our colleagues to find funding for these important programs that is satisfactory to the left and to the right. Funding for counties is an issue that impacts almost every State in the country. As Congress considers this bill, I ask my colleagues to talk to county leaders in their home states, visit local communities struggling to fund critical services, and find out how SRS and PILT impact their budgets, their priorities, and their quality of life. Rural communities deserve better than to have politics delay funding for SRS, so I urge my colleagues to join Senator Crapo and me in our efforts to reauthorize this critical program.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. I want to thank the senior Senator from Delaware for raising this important issue. I would be happy to work with him on this issue because, as my friend and colleague from Delaware knows, the Land and Water Conservation Fund is not only good for the environment but good for local economies. Economists have determined that communities that are near or part of protected natural resources have better and more sustainable economic outlooks than communities that are not. In addition to the Land and Water Conservation Fund, I have been working on longer term solutions to the need to reauthorize the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act, as well as the need to consistently fund Payments in Lieu of Taxes. These programs share a similar, though not identical, vision as the Land and Water Conservation Fund in that they seek to support the rural communities that house some of our most important conservation-based treasures. I know the Senator seeks to support these sorts of American communities and so, while we are working on ensuring the stable continuation of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, we can also work together on these funds.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing the Wildfire Disaster Funding Act of 2015 with a bipartisan group of my colleagues, to ensure that Federal agencies have the resources and funding they need to not only fight the wildfires that erupt yearly in our Nation's forests, but to effectively manage forests to prevent future infernos. For decades, our country has experienced tragic and costly wildfire seasons. Year after year, communities are displaced, natural treasures are destroyed, and the brave men and women who fight these fires risk their lives, and some don't come home. Due to climate change, drought, and overstocked and under-managed forests, the risks from these infernos continues to grow. As the Forest Service needs to direct more and more resources to fighting fires, and less to managing the forests, it is transforming itself into the ``Fire Service.'' Over the past 20 years, substantial spending on Federal wildfire suppression activities has grown. In 2013, the Forest Service devoted 41 percent of its total budget to wildfire management, compared to just 13 percent of its total budget in 1991. In 8 of the past 10 years, the Forest Service has exceeded its budget for wildfire suppression, requiring the Agency to conduct what's known as ``fire borrowing'' to cover wildfire suppression costs. The funds being borrowed come from accounts that should be used for hazardous fuels treatment and other forest management activities, and are unfortunately rarely, if ever, paid back. This ``fire robbery'' is disruptive, unproductive, and undermines the core mission of the Forest Service, particularly as forest management program budgets continue to get slashed. Hazardous fuels treatments have been proven to reduce fire risk, yet Federal agencies don't even have the opportunity or the funding to conduct these treatments when fires are breaking out and threatening lives and property for months on end. Today I am reintroducing the Wildfire Disaster Funding Act, to help our Nation find a better way to manage our forests, prevent future wildfires, and fund wildfire fighting activities, both small and catastrophic. Major wildfire events should be treated as the natural disasters that they are, and should be funded as such. This bill establishes parity for wildfire funding, putting it on equal footing with other natural disasters like floods and hurricanes. Whether it's water, wind, earth, or fire, the earth's natural disasters can all cause devastation and should be addressed equally. A Department of the Interior and Department of Agriculture analysis shows that 1 percent of wildfires represent 30 percent of agency costs. To ensure that fighting the largest infernos doesn't cripple agency budgets, the bill would fund the largest fire even under disaster programs, leaving funds available for routine wildfire fighting and forest management activities. It does this by moving any spending above 70 percent of the 10-year rolling average for fire suppression outside of the agencies' baseline budget and makes these additional costs eligible to be funded under a separate disaster account. This should free up discretionary funds that can now go toward hazardous fuels projects that will improve the health of our forests and ultimately prevent future wildfires. I am pleased to be joined again by Senator Crapo in introducing the bill today, as well as Senators Cantwell, Risch, Bennet, Gardner, Baldwin, and Daines. I look forward to working with my colleagues toward enactment of the Wildfire Disaster Funding Act in the 114th Congress.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing the Wildfire Disaster Funding Act of 2015 with a bipartisan group of my colleagues, to ensure that Federal agencies have the resources and funding they need to not only fight the wildfires that erupt yearly in our Nation's forests, but to effectively manage forests to prevent future infernos. For decades, our country has experienced tragic and costly wildfire seasons. Year after year, communities are displaced, natural treasures are destroyed, and the brave men and women who fight these fires risk their lives, and some don't come home. Due to climate change, drought, and overstocked and under-managed forests, the risks from these infernos continues to grow. As the Forest Service needs to direct more and more resources to fighting fires, and less to managing the forests, it is transforming itself into the ``Fire Service.'' Over the past 20 years, substantial spending on Federal wildfire suppression activities has grown. In 2013, the Forest Service devoted 41 percent of its total budget to wildfire management, compared to just 13 percent of its total budget in 1991. In 8 of the past 10 years, the Forest Service has exceeded its budget for wildfire suppression, requiring the Agency to conduct what's known as ``fire borrowing'' to cover wildfire suppression costs. The funds being borrowed come from accounts that should be used for hazardous fuels treatment and other forest management activities, and are unfortunately rarely, if ever, paid back. This ``fire robbery'' is disruptive, unproductive, and undermines the core mission of the Forest Service, particularly as forest management program budgets continue to get slashed. Hazardous fuels treatments have been proven to reduce fire risk, yet Federal agencies don't even have the opportunity or the funding to conduct these treatments when fires are breaking out and threatening lives and property for months on end. Today I am reintroducing the Wildfire Disaster Funding Act, to help our Nation find a better way to manage our forests, prevent future wildfires, and fund wildfire fighting activities, both small and catastrophic. Major wildfire events should be treated as the natural disasters that they are, and should be funded as such. This bill establishes parity for wildfire funding, putting it on equal footing with other natural disasters like floods and hurricanes. Whether it's water, wind, earth, or fire, the earth's natural disasters can all cause devastation and should be addressed equally. A Department of the Interior and Department of Agriculture analysis shows that 1 percent of wildfires represent 30 percent of agency costs. To ensure that fighting the largest infernos doesn't cripple agency budgets, the bill would fund the largest fire even under disaster programs, leaving funds available for routine wildfire fighting and forest management activities. It does this by moving any spending above 70 percent of the 10-year rolling average for fire suppression outside of the agencies' baseline budget and makes these additional costs eligible to be funded under a separate disaster account. This should free up discretionary funds that can now go toward hazardous fuels projects that will improve the health of our forests and ultimately prevent future wildfires. I am pleased to be joined again by Senator Crapo in introducing the bill today, as well as Senators Cantwell, Risch, Bennet, Gardner, Baldwin, and Daines. I look forward to working with my colleagues toward enactment of the Wildfire Disaster Funding Act in the 114th Congress.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I am glad Senator Murkowski has now agreed that the outlandish tar sands loophole, which rips off taxpayers and communities, must be closed. The difference between our amendments is that Senator Murkowski's amendment is a nonbinding resolution to close the loophole sometime down the road. My amendment, in contrast, closes the loophole now. The argument Senator Murkowski makes against my amendment is that it is a revenue measure that should start in the House. The fact is that there is a House revenue measure at the Senate desk right now that I would be happy to call up and amend as a substitute to my amendment to close the loophole that ends the tar sands double standard harming our communities and taxpayers. That way we will be acting in a constitutional fashion and the Senate makes clear we want to close the loophole today. I will close by saying that until I can propound the unanimous consent request to do just that, I intend to go along with the Murkowski amendment. After its consideration, I hope my colleagues will vote for my amendment because closing this flagrant tax loophole is too important to wait.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, it is very significant that more than 70 Senators just voted for a nonbinding resolution to close an outlandish tax loophole that favors Canadian tar sand producers over American oil and American taxpayers. That vote was for a nonbinding resolution. The next amendment that I offer allows the Senate to actually eliminate the flagrant loophole now. As for the blue-slip question, this amendment is an amendment that we ought to pass now and then add to an appropriate House revenue measure. This amendment, colleagues, ends the double standard today. To say to your communities, to your taxpayers, and to your producers that Canada should essentially get a free ride is not right. Let's actually do the job now. I yield back.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, this amendment closes a tax loophole that currently places Canadian tar sands oil ahead of the American taxpayer. While oil produced here in the United States, in places such as North Dakota and Texas, pays into a cleanup fund for oil spills, tar sands does not. The bottom line here is simple--when Canadian tar sands oil is spilled on American soil, the American taxpayer pays up. In effect, it is possible to state what this is all about in straight forward English: right now, our Tax Code is so out of date that it says that oil from the tar sands isn't actually oil. Put your arms around that for a second. The Tax Code is in a time warp. Under the current policy, what concerns me is a judgment that oil from the tar sands isn't actually oil. All other crude oil product refiners have to pay an 8-cent-per-barrel tax to support the oilspill liability trust fund that pays for cleaning up the spills. This puts our own domestic producers at a competitive disadvantage. I see my colleague from Colorado who cares greatly about these issues. I am saying to myself, in Colorado or Texas or North Dakota--in effect the policy that we have today on tax law--and I am the ranking Democrat on the Senate finance committee--as I looked at it, the first thing that came to mind is we have a tax policy here that, without the amendment I offer with my Senate finance colleagues, Senator Markey and others, we are putting domestic American producers--whether it is Colorado, North Dakota or Texas--at a competitive disadvantage. While domestic producers willingly contribute to clean up the oil spills, their Canadian competitors, and the tar sands up north of Edmonton, simply do not. This just defies commonsense. Oil from the tar sands is just as likely to spill as other kinds of oil. Unfortunately, you don't have to look much beyond today's headlines to get a sense of what an oil spill actually means for communities across our country. This past weekend an oil pipeline ruptured in Montana, pouring about 50,000 gallons of oil into the Yellowstone River, 5 miles upstream from the city of Glendive. Now local residents are reporting that their water smells like diesel fuel. The officials tested the water in Glendive and found oil in the drinking water and along with it elevated levels of benzene, a cancer-causing agent. That is what is under consideration with this amendment, making sure that all of the parties responsible--no matter where they are from-- would pay their fair share when they put our citizens' health and safety at risk. The double standard--the standard that is much more exacting on our domestic producers than it is on the Canadian tar sands producers-- ought to be fixed. Tar sands oil producers ought to pay into the same fund as other oil producers to clean up the spills. Because, make no mistake about it, at the end of the day, without this amendment that closes the tar sands loophole, Canadian tar sands oil will keep getting a free ride. The last point I want to mention, is just to put this issue in context. Before I chaired the Senate Finance Committee in the last Congress, I had the honor of chairing the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. In session after session of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, proponents of the pipeline said: We have got to have this to lower gas prices. If we are really going to lower gas prices, said the proponents--this was session after session after session--we have got to build the pipeline. Well, we have all seen that prices have fallen dramatically. To a great extent it is due to exciting developments in the Bakken and others. We are now essentially the Saudi Arabia of oil production. This is good news. This is like a tax cut for working-class families across the country. One of the judgments I reached in making the decision to oppose the pipeline is I did not think it made much sense to tamper with something that was such a promising development as real rate relief at the pump. A fair number of experts--yes, there is a difference of opinion, but a fair number of experts--are concerned that the pipeline, if it is built, could actually raise prices, particularly for vulnerable parts of the country. The Midwest could be one, but certainly there could be others. So I had reservations about this from a variety of standpoints, including the standpoint that tar sands are a very carbon-dense material. But I am particularly concerned tonight about the inequity of the tar sands loophole, where the Canadians get a free ride at the expense of communities all across the Nation. My amendment would close this flagrant abuse, close this loophole, help us put our tax priorities in order, and protect American citizens and American communities, rather than giving an undeserved advantage to foreign oil. I urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment, to reform the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, to clarify that those products derived from tar sands are crude oil for purposes of the Federal excise tax on petroleum. I hope this amendment will generate bipartisan support. No matter how a Senator feels with respect to the pipeline, I do not see how you can make the case that you should not correct something that defies common sense. Before the Presiding Officer came in, I made mention that right now the absence of the amendment that I offer puts a disadvantage--a serious disadvantage--on all of America's domestic producers. We did an awful lot to make it possible for Americans to get relief at the pump. That does not make any sense. So I hope my colleagues tomorrow will support this amendment on a bipartisan basis to close a flagrant tax loophole, to end what amounts to an inequity that hurts at a minimum our producers, but puts at risk our communities needlessly. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up and make pending Wyden amendment No. 27 to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to clarify that products derived from tar sands are crude oil for purposes of the Federal excise tax on petroleum.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I wish to honor the University of Oregon's football team for its tremendous season. The Fighting Ducks of Oregon accumulated 13 wins with only 2 losses this year, which accounts for the most wins in team history. This season culminated with the Ducks winning their 11th Pac-12 Conference championship, playing in the first NCAA college football playoff, winning their third-ever Rose Bowl and reaching the National Championship game. It is truly a great year to be a Duck. Recognition should not only be given to this football team's success on the field but also to the hard work and effort demonstrated by players, coaches, and staff off the field. From volunteering at local afterschool programs to honoring our military, members of the Oregon Ducks football team have shown dedication and commitment to their school and their community. Special recognition should go to head coach Mark Helfrich--a native Oregonian--for leading this group of young men to success on and off the field. I am also proud to honor Oregon quarterback Marcus Mariota for winning the University of Oregon's first Heisman Trophy. Marcus is the first athlete of Polynesian descent to win this award, which makes him the pride of his home State of Hawaii. His acceptance speech during the Heisman Trophy presentation was truly moving. I am proud to watch him represent the University with such class. The Oregon Ducks have seen tremendous success throughout this 2014 season, scoring an average of 45.4 points per game, 90 total touchdowns, and amassing more than 3,000 total yards rushing. Marcus Mariota set a school record for single-season passing yards--more than 4,400 yards in 15 games--and, following completion of the regular season, two members of the Oregon football team were honored as first- team All-Americans by the Associated Press. It has been a remarkable season all around, and I look forward to more years watching Coach Helfrich encourage his players to win the day. Go Ducks!

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise to highlight a Presidential message that was delivered to Congress 50 years ago today. But before I reiterate the importance of Medicare and Medicaid--facts that I think my colleagues and I can all agree to I would like to look back at where we have been, to recall what life was like for so many people who were poor and disabled, uninsured or unlucky before these vital safety net programs were here. Those were the days of the ``poor farm'' and the ``almshouse,'' places the poor and uninsured would go for care. It wasn't a happy choice and more often than not, it was the only choice. These places provided care, often rudimentary, and often carried a stigma. Accommodations were sparse at best. In return for health care and housing, residents were expected to work in the adjoining farm or do housework or other menial labor to offset the cost of their stay. This was the primary option for someone whose extended family couldn't provide help or didn't want to--right here in the USA. Few Americans today remember those days. When President Johnson submitted his message to Congress 50 years ago today, fewer than half of America's elderly even had health insurance. In that era, and it wasn't that long ago, it wasn't uncommon for the sick elderly to be treated like second class citizens, and as a result, many aging Americans without family to care for them ended up destitute, without necessary health care, or on the street. It was a time no one wants to revisit, a time that one sociologist said was ``another America'' where ``40 to 50 million citizens were poor, who lacked adequate medical care, and who were `socially invisible' to the majority of the population.'' It is worth remembering how far we have come. Today, I ask my colleagues to use this anniversary as a vivid reminder of the difference Medicare and Medicaid make in the daily lives of Americans, and also the health care advances that have occurred as a result. A couple facts to highlight for my colleagues: Today, with rock-solid essential health services, 54 million Americans--nearly every senior and person with disabilities--has access to Medicare's guarantee. Meanwhile, Medicaid has made a critical difference for 68 million of the Nation's most vulnerable, including more than 32 million children, 6 million seniors, and 10 million persons with disabilities. Because Medicare and Medicaid made health care possible for millions of people, they have also been the catalyst for innovations in treatment that benefit people of all ages. Here's one example: In the first 30 years of Medicare alone, deaths from heart disease dropped by a third for people over age 65. By providing coverage and access for millions, these programs became catalysts for changes in how medicine is practiced and paid for, while finding the root causes of disease and perfecting better therapies to treat them. As time has marched on, these programs evolved and improved, and the rest of the health care system followed. In 1967, Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment, EPSD, comprehensive health services benefit for all Medicaid children under age 21 was created--helping improve the health of our Nation's kids. In 1981, home and community-based waivers were established so that states could provide services in a community setting, allowing individuals to remain in their home for as long as possible. Every state now uses this option to facilitate better care and services to their Medicaid population. In 1983, Medicare took one of many legs away from fee-for-service with the advent of the hospital prospective payment system, a system that pays hospitals based on a patient's illness, and how serious it was, not based solely on how much it cost to treat them. This change, once considered drastic, has become common place and accepted. In 2003, the prescription drug coverage was added to Medicare's benefit, providing access to necessary medications for those most likely to need them. As a result of greater access to prescription drugs, beneficiaries' health have dramatically improved. In 2010, as a result of health reform, preventive services became free to patients, prescription drugs became cheaper for those beneficiaries who fell in the donut hole, Medicare began to move away from purely volume-driven care, and onto paying for quality and value, and the life of the Medicare trust fund was extended. Finally, in 2012, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid began releasing loads of claims data for the public to use. Access to this information has been game-changing in understanding the cost of care and variations in the way medicine is practiced across the country. Today, any of these examples are easy to forget because they are commonplace. But that makes them no less remarkable. I will close by noting something else, just as striking about Medicare and Medicaid: It was a bipartisan effort. The enactment of these programs shows that Congress can craft bipartisan solutions to very complex and politically difficult problems. That's what happened in 1965 when the Senate passed the legislation creating Medicare and Medicaid by a 68-32 vote after the House approved it three months earlier on a robust 313-115. As the 114th Congress gets underway, my colleagues and I could all take a page from President Johnson's playbook: Congress shouldn't use partisan tactics when the solutions can be bipartisan. And there's the lesson; that despite sharp differences and partisanship, the Congress of Johnson's day was able to rise above that culture and those challenges to find agreement and make America a much better place. As this new Congress begins, I hope we can use that 50- year-old spirit to strengthen, protect and improve Medicare and Medicaid to keep the guarantee strong and ensure health care to those who need it most.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I am pleased to be joined by Senators Merkley, McConnell, and Paul in introducing the Industrial Hemp Farming Act of 2015. I introduced this bill during the 113th Congress with these same colleagues to amend a regulation that is holding America's economy back. I am committed to empowering American farmers and increasing domestic economic activity, and that is exactly what this bill will do. The United States is the world's largest consumer of hemp products, yet it remains the only major industrialized country that bans hemp farming. As the United States imports millions of dollars of hemp products, such as textiles, foods, paper products and construction materials, American farmers who could grow hemp right here at home are unable to profit from this growing market. This is an outrageous restriction on free enterprise and does nothing but hurt economic growth and job creation. The Industrial Hemp Farming Act of 2015 would amend the definition of ``marihuana'' in the Controlled Substances Act to exclude industrial hemp, allowing American farmers to produce domestically the hemp we already use. Industrial hemp is a safe, profitable commodity in many other countries, and I've long said that if you can buy it at the local supermarket, American farmers should be able to grow it. This commonsense bill would end the burdensome restrictions on industrial hemp and is pro-environment, pro-business, and pro-farmer. I encourage my colleagues to take the time to learn about the great potential for farming industrial hemp in the United States, and to understand the real differences between industrial hemp and marijuana. Under our bill, industrial hemp is defined as having extremely low THC levels: it has to be 0.3 percent or less. The lowest commercial grade marijuana typically has 5 percent THC content. The bottom line is that no one is going to get high on industrial hemp. And to guarantee that won't be the case, our legislation allows the U.S. Attorney General to take action if a state law allows commercial hemp to exceed the maximum 0.3 percent THC level. I urge my colleagues to join Senators Merkley, McConnell, Paul, and me by cosponsoring and ultimately passing this important bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the bipartisan Ensuring Access to Clinical Trials Act of 2015. I would like to begin by thanking Senators Hatch and Markey for joining me in cosponsoring this legislation. I would also like to thank the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation for working with me on this important issue since 2010. This bill is simple: it would remove a sunset that exists for a law we passed in 2010 making it easier--and more likely--for people receiving Supplemental Security Income and Medicaid to participate in rare disease clinical trials. As I explained in 2010, we wanted to proceed carefully when altering how compensation for participating in clinical trials is treated for SSI and Medicaid purposes. That is why we included a 5 year sunset and asked GAO to report on how the law is working. Five years have passed and GAO has issued its report. GAO's frank assessment is that not a lot is known about how the law may or may not have affected the decisions an SSI recipient makes about participating in clinical trials. At the same time, GAO provided important context about factors affecting a decision to participate, such as time and travel. The GAO report suggests that the law has removed a barrier to participation for the individuals that rely on SSI and Medicaid's safety net, and GAO's consultation with the National Institutes of Health, the National Organization of Rare Diseases, and the Social Security Administration did not identify any negative aspects from the change in the law. That is comforting and important, and it is reason enough to make this law permanent. We all know what's at stake and how it's often difficult to find participants for rare disease clinical trials. This law has helped increase the number of people who can participate and, hopefully, be a part of the effort to improve treatments and find cures. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation so that recipients of SSI and Medicaid can have the same opportunity to participate in clinical trials as individuals who do not rely on these important safety net programs. I look forward to working with my colleagues on passing this bill soon. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today, I am introducing the Incentives to Educate American Children, the ``I Teach'' Act, which would provide a $1,000 refundable tax credit to elementary and secondary school teachers who teach in schools located in rural or impoverished areas. It would also provide a $1,000 credit to teachers who achieve National Board certification, and provide National Board certified teachers serving in rural or impoverished schools a $2,000 credit. It was previously introduced in the 113th Congress by Senator Rockefeller. U.S. classrooms are increasingly filled with less experienced teachers, as older teachers retire and the retention rate among young teachers continues to decline. According to the most recent data, 1.7 million teachers, representing 45 percent of the workforce, had less than 10 years of experience. Policy makers need to take steps to ensure that students have the most qualified and best trained teachers possible. Nearly a third of public schools in the United States are in rural areas. And rural schools often face challenges that others don't, like smaller tax bases and higher recruitment costs, which means they often have less money for classroom materials and salaries. Department of Education data show that rural school districts have the lowest base salaries for starting teachers, a trend that continues even as teachers move to the top of the local salary range. Rural schools face these challenges across the country. The most recent study by the Education Trust found that high schools with high poverty rates are twice as likely to have teachers who are not certified in their fields than high schools with low poverty rates. The same study found that schools serving impoverished areas have a higher percentage of first year teachers. Rural schools face similar problems. According to the Department of Education, Oregon faces a shortage of certified teachers for the 2014-15 school year in subject areas such as math, science, Spanish, special education, English as a second language, and bilingual education. A major deterrent to pursuing a master's degree in teaching is the soaring cost of tuition, which, especially for those candidates with strong science and math backgrounds, drives them into other fields instead of educating the next generation of scientists and researchers. In other words, due to the high cost of education and teachers' salaries which have failed to keep pace, additional incentives through the tax code could encourage highly qualified individuals to look to or continue to pursue teaching as a viable profession. I urge my colleagues to support this important bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, our country has asked a lot of our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines throughout its history and it will continue to do so as long as the world looks to America for leadership in crises. These brave men and women don't join the military looking for public accolades and all they ask in return for their many sacrifices is for the government to honor its commitments to them-- something I have certainly always tried to do. Of course our men and women in uniform and our veterans aren't the only folks who make sacrifices in the name of national security. From child care, to household repairs and bills, to legal issues, our military families are called on to provide support in innumerable ways as their loved ones serve and deploy. While we hope and pray that all those sent abroad return safely to the arms of their loved ones, we know that this isn't always the case. When servicemembers return home wounded or weakened as a result of combat, it is our military families who step up to take care of their son or daughter, husband or wife. When servicesmembers do not return, it is our military families who endure that searing pain that comes with such a terrible loss. It is an understatement to say that government cannot take away that pain; but what government can, and must, do is honor that sacrifice. One way we do that is by extending certain benefits to the families of those who are killed or permanently and totally disabled in action. Today, along with Senator Brown, I am introducing the Gold Star Fathers Act to update one of those benefits. The Office of Personnel Management currently allows unmarried mothers of fallen soldiers to claim a 10-point veterans' preference when applying for Federal jobs. Our legislation would simply extend this preference to unmarried fathers of fallen soldiers. Updating this preference is about fairness and recognizing that fathers, too, share in the sacrifice that their family has made for this country. Updating this preference will also expand opportunities for Gold Star families to bring their dedication and compassion into the federal government, where it can be put to great use. Gold Star Mothers and Gold Star Fathers have incurred a debt that Congress cannot ever hope to repay. All we can hope to do is ensure that these sacrifices are acknowledged and honored. 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. President, if you go to get your hair cut, your barber or stylist must be licensed. If you need to get the locks on your home repaired or replaced, the locksmith needs a license. But if you have someone prepare your tax return, there is no requirement that the preparer meet any minimum competency standard. It is time for that to change so taxpayers are protected when they file their taxes. On April 8 of last year, the Senate Finance Committee held a hearing to discuss ways to protect taxpayers from incompetent, unethical and fraudulent tax return preparers. There is no question the tax code is overly complex and confusing. For that reason among others, more than 80 million Americans pay someone else to prepare their income tax return each year. That's why it was so alarming to learn that most paid tax return preparers don't have to meet even basic standards of proficiency or competence to prepare someone else's tax return. A series of investigations by the GAO and Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, TIGTA, illustrated some of the problems with incompetent tax return preparers. As a consequence, the IRS took steps to require paid tax return preparers to demonstrate they have the know- how to provide the taxpayer with a service he or she can reasonably rely upon. I am proud to say my home state gets this issue right. Tax preparers in Oregon study, pass an exam and keep up with the changing landscape of the tax code in order to maintain their licenses, and those standards work. The GAO took a look at the system a few years ago and found that tax returns from Oregon were 72 percent likelier to be accurate than returns from the rest of the country. That puts fewer Oregonians at the mercy of unscrupulous preparers and reduces the risk of the dreaded audit. These independent analyses, combined with too many taxpayer horror stories of identity theft, refund and liability errors, and audit challenges, demonstrated clearly that a lack of basic tax return preparer competency standards is a serious consumer protection issue. Today, I am introducing legislation that will help restore standards to protect American taxpayers. This legislation, the Taxpayer Protection and Preparer Proficiency Act of 2015, which I am pleased to introduce with the distinguished Senator from Maryland, Mr. Cardin--will grant the IRS the ability to move forward with the type of education and examination program contemplated under the 2011 Circular 230 program, specifically, the Registered Tax Return Preparer, RTRP, Program. Testing and minimum competency requirements have been clearly shown to be effective at reducing error, fraud and tax preparer incompetence. We need to protect American taxpayers, and this bill helps do just that. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I rise to reintroduce a bill that would authorize the implementation of three landmark agreements that settle some of our country's most complex and contentious water allocation and species preservation issues. Water management crises this century have plagued the Klamath Basin, leading to devastating water years for communities throughout the Basin. Overcoming that adversity, stakeholders including State and Federal agencies, tribes, farmers and ranchers, and environmental groups, have spent years coming together to hammer out solutions. They swallowed hard and worked together to bring costs down and deliver economic certainty and stability for the Basin in the name of the greater good. Last year, I introduced the Klamath Basin Water Recovery and Economic Restoration Act of 2014 to finally authorize the three historic agreements reached by Basin partners--the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement, the Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement, and the Upper Basin Agreement. I was deeply disappointed that the bill did not get passed into law last Congress, delaying the implementation of these important agreements and creating even more uncertainty and anxiety for stakeholders in the Basin. Inspired by the perseverance and dedication demonstrated by the stakeholders, today I once again bring forward this bill, the Klamath Basin Water Recovery and Economic Restoration Act of 2015, to put a rubber stamp on the historic agreements and finally help heal the Klamath Basin. With this bill, the Basin will no longer be known for persistent drought, water disputes, and conflict, but rather for the dedicated and enduring collaborative efforts that have honed in on a sustainable and more economically certain future; an example that other regions can emulate for their watershed challenges. I continue to express my gratitude to the interested groups who came to the table and formed partnerships, engaged in conversations, made agreements and concessions, and ultimately found a path forward. I'm pleased to be joined by my colleagues Senators Merkley, Boxer and Feinstein on this bill. Senator Merkley has worked tirelessly to encourage and support the years of conversations and collaborative efforts of the countless stakeholders who have committed to finding a balanced solution. Senators Boxer and Feinstein have provided unwavering support for the communities impacted by unprecedented drought in the Klamath Basin, which spans Oregon and California, while also reaffirming the need to support fish and wildlife. Together, we are committed to working with our colleagues in the Senate and House to advance this bill and get it signed by the President. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I reintroduce a bill that will end the gridlock on the Oregon and California, O&C, lands found in my home State. I am pleased that my colleague Senator Merkley is joining me in this effort. Last Congress, I introduced this legislation, which went on to be reported out of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee after continued work with stakeholders and resulting modifications. I feel that a great deal of progress was made in the last Congress to find a solution for these lands in Oregon, but Congress ran out of time to complete work on this bill. That's why I am back at it here today. The bill I introduce today is intended to advance the progress made, adopting the modifications from the bill that was reported out of Committee, and paving the way to pass legislation regarding management of these lands. My legislation will end decades of uncertainty and broken forest policy with a science-driven solution that moves past the decades old timber wars. It does this by using science to guide management of the O&C lands while upholding bedrock federal environmental laws. This bill provides the jobs that Oregonians need, certainty of timber supply that timber companies require, and continued environmental protections that our treasures deserve. First, my legislation divides the O&C lands, with roughly half set aside for forestry emphasis and the other half for conservation emphasis, to put a stop to the uncertainty and conflicting priorities that have contributed to federal management failure on these lands and produce wins on both sides of the historic timber conflict. The forestry emphasis lands will employ proven forestry practices, known as ``ecological forestry,'' to mimic natural processes and create healthier, more diverse forests. Modeling using Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service analysis confirms that ecological forestry will more than double the harvest on O&C lands, producing approximately 400 mmbf on the landscape covered by this bill. On the conservation side, my bill provides permanent protections for approximately 1.35 million acres of land, while designating wilderness lands, wild and scenic rivers, and other special areas. It creates 87,000 acres of wilderness and 252 miles of wild and scenic rivers. All told, this would be the single biggest increase in Oregon's conservation lands in decades. That includes special areas protected for recreation, which is an increasingly important part of our rural economy, and is responsible for 141,000 jobs in Oregon alone. Perhaps the most important conservation win in the bill is the first-ever legislative protection for old growth on O&C lands and the designation of Late Successional Old-growth Forest Heritage Reserves. The approach of dividing the lands into conservation and timber emphasis and protecting old growth will provide clear management direction for the landscape and take the most controversial harvests off the table. Significantly, the bill streamlines and front loads environmental analysis into two large scale environmental impact statements--one each for moist and dry forests--that will study 5 years of work in the woods, rather than a single project. It does this while upholding the Endangered Species Act and other bedrock environmental laws. Critical to the bill is the belief that forest policy should be dictated by science, not lawyers. The forestry principles used in this bill are based on the work of Drs. Norm Johnson and Jerry Franklin, two respected Northwest forestry scientists, and built off of forestry approaches used around the globe. The bill also establishes the first ever legislative protections for O&C streams thanks in large part to the work of one of the Northwest's foremost water resources experts, Dr. Gordon Reeves. The Northwest Forest Plan's stream protections are extended to key watersheds and four drinking water emphasis areas, with additional lands designated for conservation, to protect drinking water. Science also guides how the agency can treat trees near streams and a scientific committee will evaluate stream buffers and reserves in areas dedicated to timber harvests, increasing or decreasing the boundaries as needed to address the ecological importance of streams. This acknowledges that one size does not fit all. Most important is the fact that I will continue to advance efforts to secure a new future for the O&C lands. My bill certainly doesn't provide everything all sides want, but it can get everyone what they need. I look forward to working with Congressmen DeFazio, Walden and Schrader and our colleagues in the Senate and House of Representatives to pass an O&C solution into law.