Ron Wyden

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, before he leaves the floor, I want to tell Senator Udall how much I have appreciated having him in that intelligence room, because he has been a strong advocate for making sure our country can have security and liberty in those classified meetings, just as he has done tonight. It is great to have him on the committee and to have him as a partner in these efforts. He is so right when he stated tonight that this is a debate that should have begun long ago. It is a debate that should have been started by elected officials and not by a government contractor. I very much appreciate the Senator's remarks. I think he made it clear that we are going to stay at this until we get it fixed, and I very much appreciate his leadership. As Senator Udall has made clear, these issues are about as important as it gets. When you are talking about how you can secure these bedrock American values--security and liberty--this is right at the heart of what Americans care about most. For too long, my view is the American people have essentially been presented with false choices. Americans have been told they can have one or the other: They can have security or they can have liberty, but they cannot have both. Suffice it to say, in the last 8 weeks, as this debate has evolved, I think Americans have come to understand that this set of false choices is not what this debate is all about, and they deserve better. As this debate has unfolded, whether you are in a lunchroom at work or a senior citizens center or you are looking at a political opinion poll, the polls have changed something like 20 points just in the last few weeks, with Americans saying, particularly, that the bulk phone records collection program is an intrusion on the rights of law-abiding Americans. Whether it is what citizens say at townhall meetings or what they say in the company lunchroom or in senior citizens centers, Americans have come to understand that these false choices are not what the discussion is all about. Americans have come to figure it out. Frankly, a big part of the problem in the past--and I documented it last week--is leaders in the intelligence community have made misleading statements, repeatedly. It is not just a question of keeping the American people in the dark--which was true--but the American people were actively misled on a number of occasions. Senator Udall and I have been walking everyone through that. The bulk phone records collection program is often compared to a grand jury subpoena approach. That is about as far-fetched as it gets. Even national security lawyers have made fun of that kind of argument in publications such as the Wall Street Journal. Very often when I talk to lawyers--the distinguished Presiding Officer is, of course, a particularly illustrious lawyer and has taught in the field. I often say when I am visiting with lawyers, or I ask for a show of hands: Does anybody know of a grand jury subpoena where you can have the bulk collection of millions of phone records of law- abiding Americans? Come on up to me and tell me after the meeting is over. I do not exactly get swarmed. The reason is there are not any. One of the reasons I wanted to touch on these misleading statements is that, just in the last few days--Senator Udall touched on this-- there has been an effort to commingle the two programs. One of them is called the FISA 702 Program, the PRISM Program, which targets foreigners and has useful value. We have made that clear. It can be improved. I came to that conclusion when I was finally able to get declassified a finding from the FISA Court that on at least one occasion the Fourth Amendment had been violated in connection with the use of the 702 Program. But even with that, I am of the view that provides useful value. But what a number of the leaders of the intelligence community have done is essentially commingled their advocacy of these programs so that 702 and the bulk collection program essentially ride together, when in reality, 702--which Senator Udall and I have supported--I think we can improve it with these privacy reforms--in effect, 702 does all the work. The bulk collection program, which does intrude on the rights of millions of law-abiding Americans, is essentially along for the ride. But you would not know that when you hear these statements from a number of the leaders in the intelligence community, when they just say ``these programs,'' of course, are what keeps us safe. In addition, I thought it was important to briefly start this evening by mentioning that over the last few days there have been a number of comments about whether the PATRIOT Act has violated the rights of Americans with respect to this bulk collection program. A number of commentators and others have said: ``Where are the violations? I haven't seen any violations.'' The Director of National Intelligence said last Friday, in a letter to you and me and Senator Udall and 23 other of our colleagues: Yes, there have been violations of the PATRIOT Act--when he said specifically that the Government had violated court orders on the bulk collection of those phone records. I am not allowed to discuss the classified nature of that, but I want to make sure those who are following this debate know that from my vantage point, reading those documents that are classified, these violations are more serious than have been stated by the intelligence community, and in my view that is very troubling. So I do hope Senators will go to the Intelligence Committee and ask to see those classified documents because I think when they read them--I think they will come to the conclusion to which I have come that, not only is what was stated by the Director of National Intelligence in that letter that was sent to you and me and Senator Udall and 23 other Senators--not only was that correct, but I think Senators who read those classified documents will also come to the conclusion that the violations are more serious than they thought--than the intelligence community portrayed. Let me, if I might, talk a little bit more about why we spent several years examining this bulk phone records program. First, I think it is important for citizens to know that the ability to conduct this secret surveillance that lays bare the personal lives of millions of law- abiding Americans, coupled with the ability to conjure up these legal theories as to why this is acceptable, and then have such limited oversight through this one-sided adversarial FISA Court, in my view, is an opportunity for unprecedented control over the private lives of Americans. That is why Senator Udall and I have spent all this time focused on this issue. I thought also tonight, and having done this before, I will provide a little more history as to how we got to this particular place. When I came to the Senate early on I had a chance to work with a number of colleagues who saw the extent of these problems--early on. One of them was our former colleague, Senator Russ Feingold. Senator Feingold saw the problems that the PATRIOT Act posed before they were apparent to many Senators. He and his staff took the responsibility to protect both American security and American liberties very seriously. In 2007, the two of us came to understand that the PATRIOT Act was being secretly interpreted to justify the bulk collection of Americans' records, and we made it clear that we thought, first of all, that was something very different from what Americans thought was going on. We thought it was very different, for example, from the plain reading of section 215 of the PATRIOT Act, and we thought that the language of the PATRIOT Act had been stretched beyond recognition because the language in the PATRIOT Act spoke to relevance and a sense that it was relevant to suspected terror activity, rather than something that created this enormous leap from what was in the statute that called for relevance to collecting millions and millions of records on law-abiding people. So Senator Feingold and I dutifully set about to write classified letters to senior officials urging them to make their official interpretation of the PATRIOT Act public. We said at the time that for intelligence activities to be sustainable and effective, they have to be based on publicly understood laws and be consistent with Americans' understanding of their own privacy rights. This, in our view, was clearly not the case with the bulk records collection because, of course, the government's official interpretation of the PATRIOT Act was a tightly guarded secret. Back then in those early days we were rebuffed when we made repeated requests that the intelligence community inform the public what the government had secretly decided the law actually meant. In fact, there was a secret court opinion that authorized massive dragnet domestic surveillance, and the American people, by that point, were essentially in the dark about what their government was doing with respect to interpreting an important law. In 2009, as the expiration of the date for the PATRIOT Act approached, Senator Feingold and I began to caution our colleagues and the public that our people were not getting the full story about the PATRIOT Act. At that time, we'd had the good fortune of having our colleague, Senator Durbin, on the committee, and we all wrote public letters. We authored various articles. We wrote editorial pages for the newspapers and made statements for the Congressional Record. We raised issues about this to the extent we could at public hearings. But, of course, the Senate rules regarding the protection of classified information limited what we could say. One point I have tried to make clear is the intelligence rules--the classification rules don't let a member of the committee tap the truth out in Morse Code. We have to comply with the rules, and they are very laborious. If we don't comply with the rules, we cannot serve on the Intelligence Committee and be a watchdog for some of these efforts that we think goes right to the heart of protecting American security and American liberty. So we decided--a small group of us who shared these views--if we wanted to have the opportunity to play that watchdog rule, we needed to work within the rules. So we did everything we could--recognizing that we can't tap out classified information in Morse Code--to alert the public about what was going on. After a series of short-term extensions, the PATRIOT Act came up for a long-term reauthorization in the spring of 2011. By that time, Senator Feingold had been replaced on the committee by Senator Udall. He, as my colleagues know, shares these concerns about the bulk collection of phone records on millions of law-abiding Americans, and we are lucky he has been a prominent leader in the cause of protecting, security, and liberty. During the 2011 reauthorization, Senator Udall and I spoke to colleagues. We invited colleagues to secure settings so we could lay out what was actually happening, and many of those colleagues joined us on the floor to oppose the extension of the PATRIOT Act for 4 more years. During that debate, I came to the floor and said: When the American people find out how their government has secretly interpreted the PATRIOT Act, they will be stunned and they will be angry. That week the Senate voted to extend the PATRIOT Act until 2015, but those of us who opposed the extension continued the fight in the months that followed. At that time the NSA was also conducting a bulk e-mail records program in addition to the bulk phone records program that is ongoing today. Senator Udall and I were concerned about this program's impact on our liberties and our privacy rights, and back in the Intelligence Committee, we spent a big chunk of 2011 pressing intelligence officials to provide evidence of its effectiveness. It turned out that the intelligence community was unable to provide any such evidence. Intelligence agencies have made statements to both Congress and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that--they had significantly exaggerated the effectiveness of the bulk e-mail program. When Senator Udall and I pressed them to back up these statements, they couldn't do it. The bulk e-mail records program was shut down that year. Our experience with the bulk e-mail records program showed us that the Intelligence Agency's assessments about the usefulness of a number of these particular programs, even big ones, are not always accurate. Now, that doesn't mean that intelligence officials were deliberately lying. In a number of instances--as far as I could tell--they believed their claims that the bulk e-mail surveillance program was effective, even though it was actually close to worthless. This was an important reminder that even if intelligence officials are well intentioned, they can be dead wrong, and that any policymaker who simply defers to intelligence officials' conclusions without asking to see their evidence is making a mistake. As we looked at that evidence, Senator Udall and I found that the claims about the effectiveness of the bulk phone records program also did not seem well supported by the facts. So in March of 2012, we wrote to the Attorney General expressly with this concern. In our letter we said: In recent months we have grown increasingly skeptical about the actual value of [this] ``intelligence collection operation.'' And we added: This has come as a surprise to us, as we were initially inclined to take the executive branch's assertions about the importance of this ``operation'' at face value. The Department of Justice, unfortunately, decided not to respond to our letter, but we continued our efforts to educate the public and to call out senior officials from intelligence agencies and the Department of Justice as they repeatedly made misleading statements about domestic surveillance. In June of this year, disclosures by the Washington Post and the Guardian newspaper revealed the fact of bulk collection to the American people. This sparked the debate that is now ongoing about whether offering up the personal records of ordinary Americans is the best way to protect our security and our liberty. This debate--as I indicated when Senator Udall was on the floor--should have started a long time ago, but I am sure glad it is finally happening now. The fact is that Americans' phone records can reveal a lot of private information. If you know, for example, that somebody called a psychiatrist three times in a week and twice after midnight, you know a lot about that person. If you are vacuuming up information on whom Americans call, when they call, and how long they talked, you are collecting an astounding amount of information about a huge number of law-abiding Americans. The intelligence agencies try to emphasize that they have rules about who can look at these bulk phone records and when. There has been a lot said on cable by the talking heads on TV, and I want to emphasize, none of these rules require the NSA to go back to a court to look at Americans' phone records. None of these rules erase the privacy impact of scooping up all of these records in the first place. On top of that, as I indicated in the beginning, there have been a number of serious violations of those rules. The Senators who got the letter last Friday know that, and I want to tell all the other Senators on both sides of the aisle that the violations--as I have touched on tonight--were a lot more serious than the public has been told. I believe the American people deserve to know more details about these violations that were described last Friday by Director Clapper. I am going to keep pressing to make more of these details public. It is my view that the information about the details of the violations of the court orders with respect to the bulk phone record collection program--the admission that the court orders have been violated--has not been, I think, fully fleshed out by the intelligence community. I think a considerable amount of additional information can be offered without in any way compromising our national security. If the impact on America's liberties wasn't bad enough, it is made even worse by the fact that this program--when we asked and asked--does not seem to have any unique value. I will explain briefly what it means. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 7 additional minutes.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Tuesday, August 1, 2013, at 9:30 a.m., in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the November 6, 2012 referendum on the political status of Puerto Rico and the Administration's response. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record may do so by sending it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150, or by e-mail to danielle_deraney@energy .senate.gov. For further information, please contact Allen Stayman at (202) 224- 7865 or Danielle Deraney at (202) 224-1219. committee on energy and natural resources

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, the Subcommittee on National Parks has previously announced a hearing to be held on Wednesday, July 31, at 2:30 p.m. to consider several bills. In addition to the bills previously announced, the subcommittee will also hear testimony on: S. 1328, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a special resource study of the archeological site and surrounding land of the New Philadelphia town site in the State of Illinois, and for other purposes, and S. 1339, to reauthorize the Ohio & Erie Canal National Heritage Canalway. For further information, please contact David Brooks at (202) 224- 9863 or John Assini at (202) 224-9313.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee Assignments of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before Subcommittee on National Parks. The hearing will be held on Wednesday, July 31, 2013, at 2:30 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the following bills: S. 398, to establish the Commission to Study the Potential Creation of a National Women's History Museum, and for other purposes; S. 524, to amend the National Trails System Act to provide for the study of the Pike National Historic Trail; S. 618, to require the Secretary of the Interior to conduct certain special resource studies; S. 702, to designate the Quinebaug and Shetucket Rivers Valley National Heritage Corridor as ``The Last Green Valley National Heritage Corridor''; S. 781, to modify the boundary of Yosemite National Park, and for other purposes; S. 782, to amend Public Law 101-377 to revise the boundaries of the Gettysburg National Military Park to include the Gettysburg Train Station, and for other purposes; S. 869, to establish the Alabama Black Belt National Heritage Area, and for other purposes; S. 925, to improve the Lower East Side Tenement National Historic Site, and for other purposes; S. 995, to authorize the National Desert Storm Memorial Association to establish the National Desert Storm and Desert Shield Memorial as a commemorative work in the District of Columbia, and for other purposes; S. 974, to provide for certain land conveyances in the State of Nevada, and for other purposes; S. 1044, to direct the Secretary of the Interior to install in the area of the World War II Memorial in the District of Columbia a suitable plaque or an inscription with the words that President Franklin D. Roosevelt prayed with the United States on D-Day, June 6, 1944; S. 1071, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to make improvements to support facilities for National Historic Sites operated by the National Park Service, and for other purposes; S. 1138, to reauthorize the Hudson River Valley National Heritage Area; S. 1151, to reauthorize the America's Agricultural Heritage Partnership in the State of Iowa; S. 1157, to reauthorize the Rivers of Steel National Heritage Area, the Lackawanna Valley National Heritage Area, the Delaware and Lehigh National Heritage Corridor, and the Schuylkill River Valley National Heritage Area; S. 1186, to reauthorize the Essex National Heritage Area; S. 1252, to amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate segments of the Missisquoi River and the Trout River in the State of Vermont, as components of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System; S. 1253, to amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate certain segments of the Farmington River and Salmon Brook in the State of Connecticut as components of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, and for other purposes; H.R. 674, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to study the suitability and feasibility of designating prehistoric, historic, and limestone forest sites on Rota, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, as a unit of the National Park System; H.R. 885, to expand the boundary of the San Antonio Missions National Historical Park, and for other purposes; H.R. 1033 and S. 916, to authorize the acquisition and protection of nationally significant battlefields and associated sites of the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812 under the American Battlefield Protection Program, and H.R. 1158, to direct the Secretary of the Interior to continue stocking fish in certain lakes in the North Cascades National Park, Ross Lake National Recreation Area, and Lake Chelan National Recreation Area. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, 304 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510-6150, or by email to John_Assini@energy.senate.gov. For further information, please contact please contact David Brooks (202) 224-9863 or John Assini (202) 224-9313. committee on rules and administration

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Tuesday, July 30, 2013, at 2:30 p.m., in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on S. 1240, the Nuclear Waste Administration Act of 2013. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record may do so by sending it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, D.C. 20510-6150, or by e-mail to Lauren_Goldschmidt@ energy.senate.gov. For further information, please contact Sam Fowler at (202) 224-7571, Dave Berick at (202) 224-2209, or Lauren Goldschmidt at (202) 224-5488.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on National Parks. The hearing will be held on Wednesday, July 31, 2013, at 2:30 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the following bills: S. 398, to establish the Commission to Study the Potential Creation of a National Women's History Museum, and for other purposes; S. 524, to amend the National Trails System Act to provide for the study of the Pike National Historic Trail; S. 618, to require the Secretary of the Interior to conduct certain special resource studies; S. 702, to designate the Quinebaug and Shetucket Rivers Valley National Heritage Corridor as ``The Last Green Valley National Heritage Corridor''; S. 781, to modify the boundary of Yosemite National Park, and for other purposes; S. 782, to amend Public Law 101-377 to revise the boundaries of the Gettysburg National Military Park to include the Gettysburg Train Station, and for other purposes; S. 869, to establish the Alabama Black Belt National Heritage Area, and for other purposes; S. 925, to improve the Lower East Side Tenement National Historic Site, and for other purposes; S. 995, to authorize the National Desert Storm Memorial Association to establish the National Desert Storm and Desert Shield Memorial as a commemorative work in the District of Columbia, and for other purposes; S. 974, to provide for certain land conveyances in the State of Nevada, and for other purposes; S. 1044, to direct the Secretary of the Interior to install in the area of the World War II Memorial in the District of Columbia a suitable plaque or an inscription with the words that President Franklin D. Roosevelt prayed with the United States on D-Day, June 6, 1944; S. 1071, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to make improvements to support facilities for National Historic Sites operated by the National Park Service, and for other purposes; S. 1138, to reauthorize the Hudson River Valley National Heritage Area; S. 1151, to reauthorize the America's Agricultural Heritage Partnership in the State of Iowa; S. 1157, to reauthorize the Rivers of Steel National Heritage Area, the Lackawanna Valley National Heritage Area, the Delaware and Lehigh National Heritage Corridor, and the Schuylkill River Valley National Heritage Area; S. 1168, to reauthorize the Essex National Heritage Area; S. 1252, to amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate segments of the Missisquoi River and the Trout River in the State of Vermont, as components of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System; S. 1253, to amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate certain segments of the Farmington River and Salmon Brook in the State of Connecticut as components of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, and for other purposes; H.R. 674, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to study the suitability and feasibility of designating prehistoric, historic, and limestone forest sites on Rota, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, as a unit of the National Park System; H.R. 885, to expand the boundary of the San Antonio Missions National Historical Park, and for other purposes; H.R. 1033 and S. 916, to authorize the acquisition and protection of nationally significant battlefields and associated sites of the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812 under the American Battlefield Protection Program, and H.R. 1158, to direct the Secretary of the Interior to continue stocking fish in certain lakes in the North Cascades National Park, Ross Lake National Recreation Area, and Lake Chelan National Recreation Area. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, 304 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510-6150, or by email to John_Assini@energy.senate.gov. For further information, please contact please contact David Brooks (202) 224-9863 or John Assini (202) 224-9313.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests, and Mining. The hearing will be held on Tuesday, July 30, 2013, at 10:00 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the following bills: S. 37, to sustain the economic development and recreational use of National Forest System land and other public land in the State of Montana, to add certain land to the National Wilderness Preservation System, to release certain wilderness study areas, to designate new areas for recreation, and for other purposes; S. 343, to provide for the conveyance of certain Federal land in Clark County, Nevada, for the environmental remediation and reclamation of the Three Kids Mine Project Site, and for other purposes; S. 364, to establish the Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Management Area, to designate certain Federal land as wilderness, and to improve the management of noxious weeds in the Lewis and Clark National Forest, and for other purposes; S. 404, to preserve the Green Mountain Lookout in the Glacier Peak Wilderness of the Mount Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest; S. 753, to provide for national security benefits for White Sands Missile Range and Fort Bliss; S. 1169, to withdraw and reserve certain public land in the State of Montana for the Limestone Hills Training Area, and for other purposes; S. 1294, to designate as wilderness certain public land in the Cherokee National Forest in the State of Tennessee, and for other purposes; S. 1300, to amend the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 to provide for the conduct of stewardship end result contracting projects; S. 1301, to provide for the restoration of forest landscapes, protection of old growth forests, and management of national forests in the eastside forests of the State of Oregon; S. 1309, to withdraw and reserve certain public land under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior for military uses, and for other purposes; H.R. 507, to provide for the conveyance of certain land inholdings owned by the United States to the Pascua Yaqui Tribe of Arizona, and for other purposes; H.R. 862, to authorize the conveyance of two small parcels of land within the boundaries of the Coconino National Forest containing private improvements that were developed based upon the reliance of the landowners in an erroneous survey conducted in May 1960; H.R. 876, to authorize the continued use of certain water diversions located on National Forest System land in the Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness and the Selway- Bitterroot Wilderness in the State of Idaho, and for other purposes, and; H.R. 993 and S. 507, to provide for the conveyance of certain parcels of National Forest System land to the city of Fruit Heights, Utah. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, 304 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510-6150, or by email to John_Assini@energy.senate.gov. For further information, please contact please contact David Brooks (202) 224-9863, or John Assini (202) 224-9313. Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I would like to reintroduce an important piece of forest legislation for my home State of Oregon. This is legislation that I introduced in the last two Congresses. The legislation gained the support of the administration through a number of improvements, but unfortunately it failed to get passed. I have since made a few more updates and improvements as I continue talking to stakeholders who worked with me on this legislation. I am introducing the bill today to reinvigorate the discussion and get stakeholders to finalize any outstanding issues so we can finally get this bill done this Congress. I am sending the message that restoring these forests in Oregon is an urgent priority that needs to get done an I am going to keep at it until this issue gets addressed I am pleased that my colleague from Oregon, Senator Merkley has again joined me today in introducing this bill. He also recognizes the urgent needs to restore Oregon's forests and help forest dependent communities and I am glad he is part of this fight. Oregon's historic war over its forests restyled in gridlock that led to millions of acres of Oregon's Federal forest landscape containing choked, overstocked stands that are at great risk of uncharacteristic catastrophic fires, insect infestations and disease. The outcome of the decades of conflict is very evident in Eastern Oregon's forests. That is why I introduced legislation in the last two Congresses to tackle the challenges facing Oregon's Eastside forests and why I reintroduce this legislation again today. The legislation I first introduced in 2009 reflected an agreement reached by leaders on both sides of these difficult issues Intense negotiations resulted in that legislation with the goal of bringing jobs and a healthier tomorrow to the 8.3 million acres on the 6 Federal forests in eastern and central Oregon. That agreement has already resulted in progress being made on forestry issues in Eastern Oregon. Already there is more collaboration, less gridlock, more timber harvests and forests gradually beginning to get restored. But we can't stop there. Since the last Congress, discussions and negotiations with interested stakeholders have continued. Today's bill reflects some of those discussions as well as some of the real progress seen on the ground in Eastern Oregon, but it also preserves the core elements of the agreement that I crafted with the stakeholders to this agreement--a push to increase the timber produced from our national forests, landscape scale restoration efforts and protections for watersheds and old growth. Eastern Oregon today is down to only a small handful of surviving timber mills. Yet those mills are urgently needed to process saw logs and other merchantable material from forest restoration projects. Without them, there will be no restoration of Oregon's Eastside forests. But without far greater certainty of merchantable timber supply, more mills will close. That's why we not only need to introduce legislation today, we need to pass it this Congress. Because time is not on our side and at risk forests and mills won't wait forever for the perfect consensus. Fortunately leaders on both sides of this issue recognize that Oregon's forests will pay the price if more mills close. That recognition is what brought us to the landmark agreement in the first place. I expect continued discussions as the Senate process advances over the best way to craft the bill to reflect current reality on the ground but I want to build on the progress that has been made to this point. I also want to point out that none of our efforts will succeed unless Oregon Federal forests are also adequately funded to properly manage and restore these valuable Federal assets. I will fight, along with Senator Merkley and other stakeholders, for the funding to put our people back to work and restore the health of our forests. I thank the stakeholders that have continued to spend time and energy engaged in discussions with me on the details of this legislation. I know there is further work ahead, and I look forward to working with them to get the legislation ready for passage. I want to also express my gratitude to Governor Kitzhaber, who also understands the importance of advancing efforts to treat and restore Oregon's forests. He went to bat to putting state funding behind these efforts so I want to ensure that the Federal Government is also honoring its commitment to manage these Federal treasures and be a good neighbor to state and private lands. I appreciate his efforts and look forward to continuing to work with him. I am pleased to reintroduce this legislation today, and I intend to keep working with all the folks in my State who are willing to talk in good faith about restoring our Eastside forests. I want to continue to get input from stakeholders on any further revisions to the bill and get a final product that will pass this Congress.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I would like to reintroduce an important piece of forest legislation for my home State of Oregon. This is legislation that I introduced in the last two Congresses. The legislation gained the support of the administration through a number of improvements, but unfortunately it failed to get passed. I have since made a few more updates and improvements as I continue talking to stakeholders who worked with me on this legislation. I am introducing the bill today to reinvigorate the discussion and get stakeholders to finalize any outstanding issues so we can finally get this bill done this Congress. I am sending the message that restoring these forests in Oregon is an urgent priority that needs to get done an I am going to keep at it until this issue gets addressed I am pleased that my colleague from Oregon, Senator Merkley has again joined me today in introducing this bill. He also recognizes the urgent needs to restore Oregon's forests and help forest dependent communities and I am glad he is part of this fight. Oregon's historic war over its forests restyled in gridlock that led to millions of acres of Oregon's Federal forest landscape containing choked, overstocked stands that are at great risk of uncharacteristic catastrophic fires, insect infestations and disease. The outcome of the decades of conflict is very evident in Eastern Oregon's forests. That is why I introduced legislation in the last two Congresses to tackle the challenges facing Oregon's Eastside forests and why I reintroduce this legislation again today. The legislation I first introduced in 2009 reflected an agreement reached by leaders on both sides of these difficult issues Intense negotiations resulted in that legislation with the goal of bringing jobs and a healthier tomorrow to the 8.3 million acres on the 6 Federal forests in eastern and central Oregon. That agreement has already resulted in progress being made on forestry issues in Eastern Oregon. Already there is more collaboration, less gridlock, more timber harvests and forests gradually beginning to get restored. But we can't stop there. Since the last Congress, discussions and negotiations with interested stakeholders have continued. Today's bill reflects some of those discussions as well as some of the real progress seen on the ground in Eastern Oregon, but it also preserves the core elements of the agreement that I crafted with the stakeholders to this agreement--a push to increase the timber produced from our national forests, landscape scale restoration efforts and protections for watersheds and old growth. Eastern Oregon today is down to only a small handful of surviving timber mills. Yet those mills are urgently needed to process saw logs and other merchantable material from forest restoration projects. Without them, there will be no restoration of Oregon's Eastside forests. But without far greater certainty of merchantable timber supply, more mills will close. That's why we not only need to introduce legislation today, we need to pass it this Congress. Because time is not on our side and at risk forests and mills won't wait forever for the perfect consensus. Fortunately leaders on both sides of this issue recognize that Oregon's forests will pay the price if more mills close. That recognition is what brought us to the landmark agreement in the first place. I expect continued discussions as the Senate process advances over the best way to craft the bill to reflect current reality on the ground but I want to build on the progress that has been made to this point. I also want to point out that none of our efforts will succeed unless Oregon Federal forests are also adequately funded to properly manage and restore these valuable Federal assets. I will fight, along with Senator Merkley and other stakeholders, for the funding to put our people back to work and restore the health of our forests. I thank the stakeholders that have continued to spend time and energy engaged in discussions with me on the details of this legislation. I know there is further work ahead, and I look forward to working with them to get the legislation ready for passage. I want to also express my gratitude to Governor Kitzhaber, who also understands the importance of advancing efforts to treat and restore Oregon's forests. He went to bat to putting state funding behind these efforts so I want to ensure that the Federal Government is also honoring its commitment to manage these Federal treasures and be a good neighbor to state and private lands. I appreciate his efforts and look forward to continuing to work with him. I am pleased to reintroduce this legislation today, and I intend to keep working with all the folks in my State who are willing to talk in good faith about restoring our Eastside forests. I want to continue to get input from stakeholders on any further revisions to the bill and get a final product that will pass this Congress.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Thursday, July 25, 2013, at 9:30 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of the hearing is to consider supplemental funding options to support the National Park Service's efforts to address deferred maintenance and operational needs. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, 304 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510-6150, or by email to John Assini@energy.senate.gov. For further information, please contact David Brooks (202) 224-9863 or John Assini (202) 224-9313. committee on energy and natural resources

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on Water and Power of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Thursday, July 25, 2013, at 2:30 p.m., in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on the issues associated with aging water resource infrastructure in the United States. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record may do so by sending it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC. 20510-6150, or by, e-mail to Lauren_Goldschmidt @energy.senate.gov. For further information, please contact Sara Tucker at (202) 224-6224 or Lauren Goldschmidt at (202) 224-5488.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Tuesday, July 23, 2013, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of this hearing is to consider S. 1273, the FAIR Act of 2013. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record may do so by sending it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, D.C. 20510-6150, or by e-mail to Lauren_Goldschmidt@energy.senate.gov. For further information, please contact Todd Wooten at (202) 224-3907 or Lauren Goldschmidt at (202) 224-5488.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Thursday, July 18, 2013, at 9:30 a.m., in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the current state of clean energy finance in the United States and opportunities to facilitate greater investment in domestic clean energy technology development and deployment. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record may do so by sending it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, D.C. 20510-6150, or by e-mail to danielle_deraney@energy.senate.gov. For further information, please contact Kevin Rennert at (202) 224- 7826 or Danielle Deraney at (202) 224-1219.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I wish to pay tribute to MG Raymond F. Rees, one of Oregon's most remarkable military leaders. After 51 years of service to our Nation and the State of Oregon, General Rees will retire from the Oregon National Guard and the U.S. Army next week. I know I speak for Oregonians across the State in thanking him for his service. General Rees hails from the small eastern Oregon town of Helix, which boasts a proud population of 184. He learned the importance of hard work at an early age, putting in long hours on the family ranch. After graduating from West Point in 1966, he completed airborne and Ranger training, preparing himself for a tour in Vietnam with the 101st Airborne Division. Upon leaving the active Army, he joined the Oregon National Guard where he commanded at every level, serving both within the State and across the country. Those who know him were not surprised that General Rees held a number of impressive titles over his long and distinguished career. He served as the director of the Army National Guard, the vice chief of the National Guard Bureau, and as the acting chief of the entire National Guard. He also served as the chief of staff for U.S. Northern Command and the North American Aerospace Defense Command at Peterson Air Force Base in Colorado. This month, he steps down as Oregon's Adjutant General, a job he held twice before. In fact, General Rees is the longest serving Adjutant General in the United States, with over 17 years of service to four different Oregon Governors. General Rees has always been a champion of the Guard, both locally and nationally. Policy decisions he helped shape in the early 1990s enabled the National Guard to better respond after the horrible attacks of September 11, 2001. Under his leadership, the Oregon Guard deployed to Afghanistan and Iraq. And Oregon units were able to respond rapidly in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, sending nearly 2,000 servicemembers within 72 hours. Nobody worked harder to strengthen the synergy between the Guard and communities across our State than General Rees, or to make sure that our returning men and women receive the vital services they earned. He helped establish the Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program, providing critical, sustaining support for Guardsmen and their families before, during, and after deployments. He led modernization efforts across Oregon, providing Guardsmen with the best equipment and facilities. He opened or improved projects across the State, including readiness centers in Pendleton, La Grande, Hermiston, Klamath Falls, Ontario, The Dalles, St. Helens, Clackamas, Gresham, Dallas and Salem. He was instrumental in helping us sign a new lease for the Portland Air National Guard Base, allowing the Air Guard to train and keep the skies safe along the west coast. Building bridges between the Guard and foreign militaries is another legacy that General Rees will leave behind, and the Guard's State Partnership Program enjoyed no stronger supporter. Under this initiative, State Guard folks are partnering with more than 60 nations to improve regional and cultural awareness, increase security cooperation, and help prevent threats from emerging. I am proud to say that under General Rees' leadership, Oregon has become one of the few States to partner with two countries simultaneously: Bangladesh and Vietnam. I could go on and on about the contributions General Rees made on behalf of servicemembers, their families, our citizens, and the State of Oregon. So today I want to join folks across the State and the country to stand and offer our congratulations to General Rees on his distinguished career. Whether as a cavalry troop commander, a cobra gunship pilot, or the Adjutant General of the Oregon National Guard, General Rees always shouldered more than his share of the task. We will miss this dedicated soldier, talented leader, and gifted diplomat--but his is a retirement well earned. I commend General Rees for his service to our country, and I want thank his wife, Mary Len, for her tireless support along the way. After decades of service, I wish Major General Rees a long and relaxing retirement. Well done!

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Thursday, July 11, 2013, at 9:30 a.m., in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of the hearing is to consider S. 1237, the Omnibus Territories Act. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record may do so by sending it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, D.C. 20510-6150, or by e-mail to danielle_deraney@ energy.senate.gov. For further information, please contact Isaiah Akin at (202) 224-5360 or Danielle Deraney at (202) 224-1219.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Tuesday, July 16, 2013, at 10 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of this oversight hearing is to explore how U.S. gasoline and fuel prices are being affected by the current boom in domestic oil production and the restructuring of the U.S. refining industry and distribution system. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record may do so by sending it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, D.C. 20510-6150, or by e-mail to Lauren_Goldschmidt@ energy.senate.gov. For further information, please contact Dave Berick at (202) 224-2209 or Lauren Goldschmidt at (202) 224-5488.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on Water and Power of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Tuesday, July 16, 2013, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on the Bureau of Reclamation's Colorado River Basin Water Supply and Demand Study. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record may do so by sending it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, D.C. 20510-6150, or by e-mail to John_Assini@energy .senate.gov. For further information, please contact Sara Tucker at (202) 224-6224 or John Assini at (202) 224-9313.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Thursday, July 11, 2013, at 9:30 a.m., in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of the hearing is to consider the September 10, 2010 Agreement between the United States and the Republic of Palau and S. 1237, the Omnibus Territories Act. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record may do so by sending it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, D.C. 20510-6150, or by e-mail to danielle_deraney@energy.senate.gov. For further information, please contact Isaiah Akin at (202) 224-5360 or Danielle Deraney at (202) 224-1219. committee on energy and natural resources

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Thursday, August 1, 2013, at 9:30 a.m., in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the November 6, 2012 referendum on the political status of Puerto Rico and the Administration's response. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record may do so by sending it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, D.C. 20510-6150, or by e-mail to danielle_deraney@energy.senate.gov. For further information, please contact Allen Stayman at (202) 224- 7865 or Danielle Deraney at (202) 224-1219.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation to strengthen the relationship between the United States and the Republic of Palau, one of our closest and most reliable allies. This legislation, if enacted, would implement the recommendations of the 15- year review called for under the Compact of Free Association between our two nations. The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources will be holding a hearing on insular issues on Thursday, July 11, and it is my intention to add this bill to the agenda for that hearing. Palau is located in the western Pacific about 800 miles south of Guam and 500 miles east of the Philippines. The close ties between the U.S. and Palau date from World War II, when Japanese forces were defeated in the Battle of Peleliu with a loss of nearly 2,000 U.S. marines. In 1947, the islands became a District in the United Nations Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands. The United States was appointed Administrating Authority of the Trust Territory with the responsibility to promote economic and political development. Because of the United States' strategic interest in this region, the Trust Territory was established as the only U.N. ``Strategic'' Trust under the authority of the U.N. Security Council, as opposed to the U.N. General Assembly. In 1982, Palau signed a 50-year Compact of Free Association that was approved by the U.S. in 1986, P.L. 99-658. The Compact went into effect on October 1, 1994, and the U.N. Trusteeship was subsequently terminated, making Palau a sovereign, self-governing state in free association with the United States. The Compact provides the U.S. with the ability to deny the use of Palauan territory to the military forces of other nations, and to establish military bases in Palau, should the need arise. These security provisions are described by the administration as ``vital'' to U.S. regional security and diplomatic interests. The U.S. and Palau completed a formal review of the Compact in 2010 and, on September 10, 2010, signed an agreement with amendments to the Compact based on the conclusions and recommendation of the review. The bill being introduced today would approve this agreement and its appendices and incorporate them into the law which established the Compact. First, the legislation would extend and phase-out annual financial assistance over 11 years, through 2024, for operations, construction, maintenance and trust fund contributions totaling $165 million, or an average of $15 million annually. Second, the legislation significantly enhances accountability of U.S. financial assistance by requiring Palau to undertake financial and management reforms. Third, the bill would require any Palauan entering the U.S. to have a Palau passport. This would be the same requirement that was imposed on citizens of Micronesia and the Marshall Islands when their Compacts were reviewed and amended in 2003. This agreement and legislation reaffirms and strengthens the special ties between the U.S. and Palau. Together we will continue our commitment to regional security. The United States will continue to be responsible for the security and defense of Palau, and the U.S. is honored to have the continued service of the men and women of Palau in the U.S. armed services. Strategic denial and the associated base rights provided for under the Compact were originally designed to counter the Cold War threat in the Pacific. While the Cold War has ended, the U.S. continues to face new challenges in the region. I look forward to working with officials in the administration and in Palau who conducted the Compact Review and concluded this important agreement. I urge my colleagues to join with me in approving this agreement and assuring the continued strength of this historic partnership. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation to strengthen the relationship between the United States and the Republic of Palau, one of our closest and most reliable allies. This legislation, if enacted, would implement the recommendations of the 15- year review called for under the Compact of Free Association between our two nations. The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources will be holding a hearing on insular issues on Thursday, July 11, and it is my intention to add this bill to the agenda for that hearing. Palau is located in the western Pacific about 800 miles south of Guam and 500 miles east of the Philippines. The close ties between the U.S. and Palau date from World War II, when Japanese forces were defeated in the Battle of Peleliu with a loss of nearly 2,000 U.S. marines. In 1947, the islands became a District in the United Nations Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands. The United States was appointed Administrating Authority of the Trust Territory with the responsibility to promote economic and political development. Because of the United States' strategic interest in this region, the Trust Territory was established as the only U.N. ``Strategic'' Trust under the authority of the U.N. Security Council, as opposed to the U.N. General Assembly. In 1982, Palau signed a 50-year Compact of Free Association that was approved by the U.S. in 1986, P.L. 99-658. The Compact went into effect on October 1, 1994, and the U.N. Trusteeship was subsequently terminated, making Palau a sovereign, self-governing state in free association with the United States. The Compact provides the U.S. with the ability to deny the use of Palauan territory to the military forces of other nations, and to establish military bases in Palau, should the need arise. These security provisions are described by the administration as ``vital'' to U.S. regional security and diplomatic interests. The U.S. and Palau completed a formal review of the Compact in 2010 and, on September 10, 2010, signed an agreement with amendments to the Compact based on the conclusions and recommendation of the review. The bill being introduced today would approve this agreement and its appendices and incorporate them into the law which established the Compact. First, the legislation would extend and phase-out annual financial assistance over 11 years, through 2024, for operations, construction, maintenance and trust fund contributions totaling $165 million, or an average of $15 million annually. Second, the legislation significantly enhances accountability of U.S. financial assistance by requiring Palau to undertake financial and management reforms. Third, the bill would require any Palauan entering the U.S. to have a Palau passport. This would be the same requirement that was imposed on citizens of Micronesia and the Marshall Islands when their Compacts were reviewed and amended in 2003. This agreement and legislation reaffirms and strengthens the special ties between the U.S. and Palau. Together we will continue our commitment to regional security. The United States will continue to be responsible for the security and defense of Palau, and the U.S. is honored to have the continued service of the men and women of Palau in the U.S. armed services. Strategic denial and the associated base rights provided for under the Compact were originally designed to counter the Cold War threat in the Pacific. While the Cold War has ended, the U.S. continues to face new challenges in the region. I look forward to working with officials in the administration and in Palau who conducted the Compact Review and concluded this important agreement. I urge my colleagues to join with me in approving this agreement and assuring the continued strength of this historic partnership. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today Senator Stabenow and I are introducing legislation designed to reduce our dependence on oil in the transportation sector by replacing it with cleaner, domestic sources of energy to power our cars, trucks, buses, tractors, and ships. Until very recently, our nation was dependent upon foreign, often unstable governments for its energy supply--particularly for the oil that fuels our transport--70 percent of which was imported from overseas. Now, recent advances in drilling technologies have uncovered abundant domestic energy resources and it is predicted that the U.S. will be a net oil and gas exporter in the near future. Today, we are introducing legislation that builds on our introduction of a similar bill last Congress which was approved by Committee, our continual work with a broad array of stakeholders and the feedback received during the series of natural gas forums held by the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. Those forums served as a reminder of the great opportunity no one imagined we'd have even a few years ago, of being able to chart our own energy future rather than relying on other countries or single technologies to drive our economy forward. While the natural gas forums served as a reminder, it is crucial that we don't just supplant reliance on oil for reliance on another single resource or technology. At the end of the day, different fuels are going to work better in different types of vehicles and in different parts of the country. For that reason, our bill does not pick technology winners and losers. It is ``technology neutral,'' ``geography neutral'' and ``market neutral.'' An alternative fuel that is readily available in one part of the country may not be readily available in every part of the country, or it may not work as well in an 18 wheel tractor-trailer as in the family car. Our bill does not choose which fuel is used where, or for what kinds of vehicles. We leave that up to the free market so that fuel providers and vehicle manufacturers can compete for what works best for their customers. This bill brings us closer to the day when conventional gas stations give way to the ``Fueling Station of the Future'' where consumers will have the option to choose between whichever fuel serves their needs. Energy legislation, including the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, have instituted a number of programs at the Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency to address the need to strengthen our energy security by replacing a significant portion of the oil Americans use for transportation with alternative fuels such as electricity, natural gas, propane, biofuels, and hydrogen. However, these programs currently fail to provide workable solutions for many of the obstacles alternative fuels suppliers and alternative fuel vehicles manufacturers face when attempting to get their technologies to market. Modifying these existing programs--and bolstering them with cohesive policies enshrined in law to make them more useful for potential applicants--will help our nation exploit our newfound abundant energy resources, target climate change by incentivizing more widespread use of cleaner transportation fuels, and create jobs by catalyzing new businesses in the diverse alternative fuel and alternative fuel vehicles sector. Our bottom line goal is to help American businesses, which build vehicles and supply fuel, provide genuine alternatives to conventional fuels and engine technologies so that Americans can reduce our dependence on oil as a transportation fuel. The bill does this by providing a set of tools to promote the deployment of these technologies. In several instances, the bill modifies existing programs, rather than creating new ones. First, the bill takes the existing advanced vehicle manufacturing support program at the Department of Energy, which is now focused on providing financial support to major manufacturers of light duty vehicles, and opens it up to alternative fuel technologies. It also expands the program to component manufacturers further down the supply chain and to the production of medium and heavy trucks, buses, and transit vehicles and lifts the cap on the amount of loans that can be made to American manufacturers and their suppliers. Alternative fuel vehicles need alternative fuel. So the next major initiative in the bill is to provide financial support for the production and distribution of those alternative fuels. Again, instead of creating a whole new program to support this alternative fuel infrastructure, the bill modifies the existing clean energy Department of Energy loan guarantee program created in section 1703 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. This loan program was aimed at financing new, innovative low-carbon electricity generation technologies. That is all well and good, but those investments do not address the very real energy security challenge facing our country from oil imports, especially since so little electricity in the U.S. is actually generated using oil. Our bill would allow this already existing program to be used for alternative fuel infrastructure. The bill includes additional measures to provide technical assistance to States, local and tribal governments, public-private partnerships, and utility companies and utility commissions to help overcome barriers to the deployment of these alternative fuel vehicles. The bill further provides worker training provisions to ensure our nation has a skilled workforce capable of making the goals of this bill a reality. Taken altogether, these provisions are designed to provide the tools for manufacturers, parts suppliers, fuel providers, transportation planners, utility regulators, and State, local, and tribal officials to deploy alternative fuel vehicles, and the fuels to power them, in numbers that make a difference and truly reduce our dependence on imported oil. Our bill has broad support from industry groups and has been endorsed by the Alliance for Automobile Manufacturers, Natural Gas Vehicles for America, Global Automakers, the American Public Gas Association, Drive Oregon, the National Electrical Manufacturers Association, and the Electric Drive Transportation Association. We ask our colleagues to stand with us in support of this bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today Senator Stabenow and I are introducing legislation designed to reduce our dependence on oil in the transportation sector by replacing it with cleaner, domestic sources of energy to power our cars, trucks, buses, tractors, and ships. Until very recently, our nation was dependent upon foreign, often unstable governments for its energy supply--particularly for the oil that fuels our transport--70 percent of which was imported from overseas. Now, recent advances in drilling technologies have uncovered abundant domestic energy resources and it is predicted that the U.S. will be a net oil and gas exporter in the near future. Today, we are introducing legislation that builds on our introduction of a similar bill last Congress which was approved by Committee, our continual work with a broad array of stakeholders and the feedback received during the series of natural gas forums held by the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. Those forums served as a reminder of the great opportunity no one imagined we'd have even a few years ago, of being able to chart our own energy future rather than relying on other countries or single technologies to drive our economy forward. While the natural gas forums served as a reminder, it is crucial that we don't just supplant reliance on oil for reliance on another single resource or technology. At the end of the day, different fuels are going to work better in different types of vehicles and in different parts of the country. For that reason, our bill does not pick technology winners and losers. It is ``technology neutral,'' ``geography neutral'' and ``market neutral.'' An alternative fuel that is readily available in one part of the country may not be readily available in every part of the country, or it may not work as well in an 18 wheel tractor-trailer as in the family car. Our bill does not choose which fuel is used where, or for what kinds of vehicles. We leave that up to the free market so that fuel providers and vehicle manufacturers can compete for what works best for their customers. This bill brings us closer to the day when conventional gas stations give way to the ``Fueling Station of the Future'' where consumers will have the option to choose between whichever fuel serves their needs. Energy legislation, including the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, have instituted a number of programs at the Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency to address the need to strengthen our energy security by replacing a significant portion of the oil Americans use for transportation with alternative fuels such as electricity, natural gas, propane, biofuels, and hydrogen. However, these programs currently fail to provide workable solutions for many of the obstacles alternative fuels suppliers and alternative fuel vehicles manufacturers face when attempting to get their technologies to market. Modifying these existing programs--and bolstering them with cohesive policies enshrined in law to make them more useful for potential applicants--will help our nation exploit our newfound abundant energy resources, target climate change by incentivizing more widespread use of cleaner transportation fuels, and create jobs by catalyzing new businesses in the diverse alternative fuel and alternative fuel vehicles sector. Our bottom line goal is to help American businesses, which build vehicles and supply fuel, provide genuine alternatives to conventional fuels and engine technologies so that Americans can reduce our dependence on oil as a transportation fuel. The bill does this by providing a set of tools to promote the deployment of these technologies. In several instances, the bill modifies existing programs, rather than creating new ones. First, the bill takes the existing advanced vehicle manufacturing support program at the Department of Energy, which is now focused on providing financial support to major manufacturers of light duty vehicles, and opens it up to alternative fuel technologies. It also expands the program to component manufacturers further down the supply chain and to the production of medium and heavy trucks, buses, and transit vehicles and lifts the cap on the amount of loans that can be made to American manufacturers and their suppliers. Alternative fuel vehicles need alternative fuel. So the next major initiative in the bill is to provide financial support for the production and distribution of those alternative fuels. Again, instead of creating a whole new program to support this alternative fuel infrastructure, the bill modifies the existing clean energy Department of Energy loan guarantee program created in section 1703 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. This loan program was aimed at financing new, innovative low-carbon electricity generation technologies. That is all well and good, but those investments do not address the very real energy security challenge facing our country from oil imports, especially since so little electricity in the U.S. is actually generated using oil. Our bill would allow this already existing program to be used for alternative fuel infrastructure. The bill includes additional measures to provide technical assistance to States, local and tribal governments, public-private partnerships, and utility companies and utility commissions to help overcome barriers to the deployment of these alternative fuel vehicles. The bill further provides worker training provisions to ensure our nation has a skilled workforce capable of making the goals of this bill a reality. Taken altogether, these provisions are designed to provide the tools for manufacturers, parts suppliers, fuel providers, transportation planners, utility regulators, and State, local, and tribal officials to deploy alternative fuel vehicles, and the fuels to power them, in numbers that make a difference and truly reduce our dependence on imported oil. Our bill has broad support from industry groups and has been endorsed by the Alliance for Automobile Manufacturers, Natural Gas Vehicles for America, Global Automakers, the American Public Gas Association, Drive Oregon, the National Electrical Manufacturers Association, and the Electric Drive Transportation Association. We ask our colleagues to stand with us in support of this bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

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