Ron Wyden

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 Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Tuesday, March 19, 2013, at 10 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of the hearing is to examine the options and challenges related to possible reauthorization and reform of two payment programs for local governments--the recently expired Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act and the Payment in Lieu of Taxes. 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 Michele Miranda (202) 224- 7556 or John Assini (202) 224-9313.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, the issue of American security and American freedom really does not get enough discussion here in the Senate. It is my view that the Senator from Kentucky has made a number of important points this day, and I would like to take a few minutes to lay out my views on this issue and then pose a question to my colleague from Kentucky. We have talked often about these issues. I always learn a great deal. Of course the Senate will be voting on the nomination of John Brennan, the Deputy National Security Adviser, to be the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. I voted in favor of Mr. Brennan during Tuesday's Intelligence Committee meeting, and I intend to vote for Mr. Brennan on the floor. Virtually every member of the Intelligence Committee now, in my view, believes Mr. Brennan has substantial national security expertise and experience, and it is certainly my hope that he will be the principled and effective leader the CIA needs and deserves. I think Senator Paul and I agree that this nomination also provides a very important opportunity for the U.S. Senate to consider the government's rules and policies on the targeted killings of Americans, and that, of course, has been a central pillar of our Nation's counterterror strategy. For several years now, I and colleagues--Senator Paul as well--have been seeking to get more information about the executive branch's rules for conducting targeted killings of Americans. I am pleased that after considerable efforts--efforts really that should not have to have been taken to get documents that the Intelligence Committee has been entitled to for some time--the committee has now received those secret legal opinions. To be clear--and this is a point Senator Paul made in the course of this discussion--targeted killings of enemy fighters, including targeted killings that involve the use of drones, can be a legitimate wartime tactic. If an American citizen chooses to take up arms against the United States, there will absolutely be circumstances in which the President has the authority to use lethal force against that American. But I think it has been our view--a view that I hold and that I know Senator Paul holds--that the executive branch should not be allowed to conduct such a serious and far-reaching program by themselves without any scrutiny because that is not how American democracy works. That is not what our system is about. Our unique form of government is based on a system of checks and balances that will be here long after the current President and individual Senators are gone. From time to time, the Senator from Kentucky and I say we ought to have something that we call a checks and balances caucus here in the Senate. Those checks and balances depend upon robust congressional oversight, and frankly they depend on bringing the public into this discussion as well, that there be public oversight. We share the view that details about individual operations do need to be kept secret, but the Congress and the public need to know what the rules for targeted killings are so they can make sure, as the Senator has touched on in the course of this day, that American security and American values are both being protected. It is almost as if we have a constitutional teeter-totter: we want both our security and our liberty. This is especially true when it comes to the rules for conducting targeted killings of Americans. What it comes down to is every American has the right to know when their government believes it is allowed to kill them. Now the executive branch has gradually provided Congress with much of its analyses on this crucial topic, but I think more still needs to be done to ensure that we understand fully the implications of what these heretofore secret opinions contain and we have a chance to discuss them as well. In his capacity as Deputy National Security Adviser, John Brennan has served as the President's top counterterrorism adviser and one of the administration's chief spokesmen regarding targeted killing and the use of drones. He would continue to play a decisive role in U.S. counterterror effort if he is confirmed as Director of the CIA, and the Intelligence Committee is charged with conducting vigilant oversight of these particular efforts. A number of colleagues on the Senate Intelligence Committee of both political parties I think share a number of the views that Senator Paul and a number on this side of the aisle have been expressing today and in the past few days. I would especially like to express my appreciation to the former chairman of the Intelligence Committee, Senator Rockefeller. There is no one more committed to the principles the CIA stands for. There is no individual more committed to the principles the CIA stands for than Senator Rockefeller, and he believes more needs to be done to ensure that Congress has the power to do responsible oversight. Senator Udall, Senator Collins, and Senator Heinrich are all ones who share that view as well. In doing that, we recognize that we have a responsibility and that ultimately it is up to American voters to decide whether Congress is fulfilling its obligation to conduct vigorous oversight of the executive branch's actions and activities. Let me then turn to the question that has received most of the attention today and is really about what I would like to explore for a moment or two with my colleague from Kentucky. The President has also said--I was encouraged by a number of his comments, including the State of the Union Address--that with respect to counterterrorism efforts, no one should take his word for it that the administration is doing things the right way. As part of that, he said he was going to engage the American people in a discussion of these kinds of issues. When it comes to continuing the public debate about the rules for conducting targeted killings, there are a number of questions which need to be explored. One question I will address to Senator Paul involves the question he and I have been interested in for some time, and that is the question of the geographic limitation with respect to the use of lethal authority. Senator Paul and I--as well as others--have been asking for some time: What are the limits with respect to these lethal authorities, and in particular whether they can be used inside the United States? I have listened to a bit of the comments made by Senator Paul concerning the confirmation hearing tomorrow. The point the Senator has made this afternoon is an issue I and others have asked of the Attorney General for some time, and we have not been able to get an answer. In recent weeks Senator Paul has sent a number of letters on this topic. He has received two responses and he has shared them with me. For purposes of this question, I think the response from John Brennan-- and he stated his view on this quite clearly--was quite constructive. He said the CIA does not conduct lethal operations inside the United States, and most importantly--as per the conversations the Senator from Kentucky and I have had--Mr. Brennan said the CIA does not have the authority to conduct those operations. He was unequivocal with respect to what would happen if he was confirmed as the head of the CIA, that he would not have the authority to conduct those operations. So for purposes of anybody who is kind of keeping score, I just say that Mr. Brennan--on the questions the Senator from Kentucky and I have been interested in--was clear and forthright. I have been interested in this for some time. I am glad the Senator from Kentucky has asked the question. We have now gotten an answer that is unequivocal from Mr. Brennan. That brings us to the second response from Attorney General Holder. This letter repeated the statement that the U.S. Government has not carried out any drone strikes inside the United States and that the Obama administration has no intention of doing so. It goes on to say that the Obama administration ``rejects the use of military force where well-established law enforcement authorities in this country provide the best means for incapacitating a terrorist threat.'' I would certainly agree with this position. It is clear to me that prosecutions in Federal court provide tough effective means for dealing with terrorist suspects, which is why there are a great many terrorists who are now sitting in American prisons today locked behind bars and exactly where they belong. The Attorney General went on to state: It is possible . . . to imagine an extraordinary circumstance--Such as Pearl Harbor or the 9/11 attacks--in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and . . . laws of the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States. This is what I wish to unpack a little bit with my colleague from Kentucky after asking this question a number of times and thinking a lot about what the answer ought to be. On this particular issue it seems to me the Attorney General has certainly moved in the direction of what we wanted to hear. I want to kind of outline it, and I think we agree on most of it, but I want to have a chance to exchange some thoughts. One of the core principles of American democracy is that we do not ask our military to patrol our streets. It was important to me to hear the Attorney General emphasize that principle. I know there are some who believe the military ought to be given more domestic counterterror responsibilities such as capturing and detaining terrorist suspects inside the country. I do not share that view, and I know the Senator from Kentucky does not share that view. I am grateful the Obama administration has now said they don't share that view either. In fact, as I have talked about with a number of colleagues, I actually voted against the annual Defense authorization bill for the past 2 years because I was concerned that those two bills didn't adequately address that particular principle. The Attorney General suggested what I think we would all consider an unlikely scenario, the Pearl Harbor and 9/11 attacks, in which it would be lawful and appropriate for the President to use military force inside the United States. As I read that statement--and this is the point of my question to my friend from Kentucky--it sounds a lot like the language that is in article 4 of the Constitution which directs the U.S. Government to protect individual States from invasion. In my judgment, if the United States is being attacked by a foreign power, such as the 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor, the President can indeed have the military power to use the military to defend our country. The reason I have been asking this question and have been interested in exploring it with my colleague from Kentucky is that I think it is extremely important to establish that unless we have an extraordinary situation, such as Pearl Harbor, the President should not go around ordering the military to use lethal force inside the United States. Our military--we are very proud of them--plays a vital role in efforts to combat terrorism overseas, but here at home we rely on the FBI and other law enforcement agencies to track down the terrorists, and they do their job well. I thought it was helpful to see the Attorney General, as part of what has been discussed here, clarify and establish that the President can only use military force inside the United States in extraordinary circumstances such as the Pearl Harbor attack. The Senator from Kentucky and I have had discussions over this, and I thought about it overnight and thought about our discussions. My sense is that the Senator from Kentucky doesn't believe the Attorney General's response was clear enough. I very much respect his view on this point. One of the reasons why I wanted to walk briefly through a little bit of history is that I think there are some issues still to be debated. My colleague has certainly been correct in asking valid questions because the Attorney General has left open the possibility of using military force inside the United States outside of the extraordinary Pearl Harbor circumstance I have mentioned. So, through the Chair, I ask the Senator: I think the Senator is raising some important questions. In fact, my friend has asked some of the most important questions that we could be asking here on the floor of the Senate. It seems to me the Attorney General has ruled out using military force inside the United States except in cases of an actual attack by a foreign power. I understand why my colleague from Kentucky would say we ought to be engaging more with the administration and asking for additional insight. I want it understood that I have great respect for his effort to ask these kinds of questions and force them to be debated on the floor. Senator Paul has certainly been digging into these issues in great detail. Frankly, on the question of how we balance American security and American liberty, we have worked together often, and we are certainly going to be working together in the future on these issues in the days ahead. I wish to allow the Senator from Kentucky to respond to my question. I ask that my friend recognize that while we might differ a bit on the aspect of the Attorney General's response which I have cited this afternoon where there would be an instance of an extraordinary threat to our country, I do see--almost as part of what article 4 is about-- the President's ability to defend us in those kinds of situations. I know my colleague from Kentucky may see it differently, and, frankly, he is raising important issues. I am interested in his thoughts on that this afternoon.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, just responding to the point of the Senator from Kentucky and noting the fact he would not be giving up the floor in the process, I think the Senator from Kentucky is making an important point, and the way I read it, it would focus on ensuring that our country would be protected against those kinds of exceptional circumstances. I would just like to leave the discussion here by noting that I think both of us feel this is just the beginning of this debate. The nature of warfare has changed so dramatically--and I particularly appreciate the chance to work on this in a bipartisan way--we are going to have to be continually digging in and trying to excavate more information about how all of this actually works without in any way jeopardizing sources and methods and ongoing operations. I think we can do it. With respect to how I read particularly that part of the letter--and I thought a lot about it--I think the two of us and others can be part of what we can call the ``checks and balances caucus,'' so we can just make sure people understand this is about liberty and security, and I think we can flesh this out more in the days ahead. I know I have had four sessions now with the classified documents that were made available as a member of the Intelligence Committee and I still have a lot of questions. Some of those I think we will have to ask in a classified way, but I think others of them we can ask in a public way, and the two of us can work on that together. I also think there is a very strong case for beginning to declassify some of the information with respect to these drone policies, and I think that can be done as well, consistent with protecting our national security. So I think the Senator from Kentucky has made a number of important points this afternoon. I thank him for the chance to work with him on these issues and I look forward to continuing this discussion in the days ahead and I appreciate the time.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce a bill that will address a cumbersome and time consuming process in place under existing law within the Bureau of Indian Affairs. This piece of legislation will streamline the land acquisition process for the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians. The current process for taking land into trust is simply not working, and I believe there are changes that need to be made in the existing process. I am pleased to be joined by Senator Merkley in this effort. I want to note that I introduced similar legislation last Congress that was stalled at the Committee level due to certain language in that bill--language that, at the time, we thought was needed but found later was unnecessary and was preventing the bill from moving forward. In the bill I am introducing today, I took that language out to resolve the needs of the various stakeholders and to ensure the bill has a chance to pass the Committee and be signed into law. The original Siletz Coastal Treaty Reservation, established by the Executive Order on November 9, 1855, was diminished and then eliminated by the Federal Government's allotment and termination policies. Tribal members and the tribal government have worked to rebuild the Siletz community since the Western Oregon Termination Act of August 1954 stripped the Siletz people of Federal tribal recognition. Since then the tribe has been struggling to rebuild its land base. This legislation would work to facilitate the tribe's land into trust process within the original Siletz coast reservation to overcome chronic agency delays in processing applications. Instead of having two cumbersome processes to bring each piece of former reservation land back into the reservation after purchase, one to bring the land into trust and another to make it reservation land, my legislation would allow the tribe to combine the process. In this case, because the original reservation was disassembled, and the tribe terminated and provided a very small land base upon restoration, virtually every tract of land the tribe seeks to place into trust today is considered by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, BIA, pursuant to off-reservation fee-to-trust procedures. Off- reservation requests would mean that, according the regulations, the ``. . . secretary gives greater scrutiny to the tribe's justification of anticipated benefits. . .'' By applying the on-reservation fee-to-trust criteria for lands within the Siletz Tribe's original reservation, this legislation allows the Tribe to take land into trust that will ultimately provide for vital tribal programs such as housing, government administration, and jobs-- for both tribal and county residents. In addition, the bill emphasizes the importance and the intent of the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934--which allows the Secretary of Interior, in his or her discretion, to take land into trust for the benefit of an Indian tribe or of individual Indians. Essentially, reversing the loss of tribal lands and restoring some of the tribe's original land base by allowing the Tribe to take land into trust under the same provisions as other Indian tribes within their reservations. This bill underscores the importance of economic stability and self- determination for the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians and its members. Due to failed Termination Era policies, Oregon Tribal communities suffer some of the greatest hurdles, whether it is health care, education, or crime on reservations. This bill would alleviate much of the cost and much needed resources associated with the bureaucratic hoops the tribe has had to jump through for years--which mean a significant savings of time and resources. The Siletz Tribe has approached all the involved counties and has developed great communication and working relationships with them. This legislation establishes and confirms a positive and beneficial partnership between the Federal Government, Siletz Tribe and local counties Lincoln, Lane, Tillamook, Yamhill, Benton, and Douglas. That is why I am introducing this legislation. The process remains cumbersome and costly and I recognize the need for more action. It is always great to see tribes and local counties work together to come up with proactive solutions for their communities to tackle challenging economic conditions. I want to express my thanks to all the citizens and community and tribal leaders who have worked to build their communities. They represent the pioneering spirit and vision that defines my state. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce a bill that will address a cumbersome and time consuming process in place under existing law within the Bureau of Indian Affairs. This piece of legislation will streamline the land acquisition process for the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians. The current process for taking land into trust is simply not working, and I believe there are changes that need to be made in the existing process. I am pleased to be joined by Senator Merkley in this effort. I want to note that I introduced similar legislation last Congress that was stalled at the Committee level due to certain language in that bill--language that, at the time, we thought was needed but found later was unnecessary and was preventing the bill from moving forward. In the bill I am introducing today, I took that language out to resolve the needs of the various stakeholders and to ensure the bill has a chance to pass the Committee and be signed into law. The original Siletz Coastal Treaty Reservation, established by the Executive Order on November 9, 1855, was diminished and then eliminated by the Federal Government's allotment and termination policies. Tribal members and the tribal government have worked to rebuild the Siletz community since the Western Oregon Termination Act of August 1954 stripped the Siletz people of Federal tribal recognition. Since then the tribe has been struggling to rebuild its land base. This legislation would work to facilitate the tribe's land into trust process within the original Siletz coast reservation to overcome chronic agency delays in processing applications. Instead of having two cumbersome processes to bring each piece of former reservation land back into the reservation after purchase, one to bring the land into trust and another to make it reservation land, my legislation would allow the tribe to combine the process. In this case, because the original reservation was disassembled, and the tribe terminated and provided a very small land base upon restoration, virtually every tract of land the tribe seeks to place into trust today is considered by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, BIA, pursuant to off-reservation fee-to-trust procedures. Off- reservation requests would mean that, according the regulations, the ``. . . secretary gives greater scrutiny to the tribe's justification of anticipated benefits. . .'' By applying the on-reservation fee-to-trust criteria for lands within the Siletz Tribe's original reservation, this legislation allows the Tribe to take land into trust that will ultimately provide for vital tribal programs such as housing, government administration, and jobs-- for both tribal and county residents. In addition, the bill emphasizes the importance and the intent of the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934--which allows the Secretary of Interior, in his or her discretion, to take land into trust for the benefit of an Indian tribe or of individual Indians. Essentially, reversing the loss of tribal lands and restoring some of the tribe's original land base by allowing the Tribe to take land into trust under the same provisions as other Indian tribes within their reservations. This bill underscores the importance of economic stability and self- determination for the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians and its members. Due to failed Termination Era policies, Oregon Tribal communities suffer some of the greatest hurdles, whether it is health care, education, or crime on reservations. This bill would alleviate much of the cost and much needed resources associated with the bureaucratic hoops the tribe has had to jump through for years--which mean a significant savings of time and resources. The Siletz Tribe has approached all the involved counties and has developed great communication and working relationships with them. This legislation establishes and confirms a positive and beneficial partnership between the Federal Government, Siletz Tribe and local counties Lincoln, Lane, Tillamook, Yamhill, Benton, and Douglas. That is why I am introducing this legislation. The process remains cumbersome and costly and I recognize the need for more action. It is always great to see tribes and local counties work together to come up with proactive solutions for their communities to tackle challenging economic conditions. I want to express my thanks to all the citizens and community and tribal leaders who have worked to build their communities. They represent the pioneering spirit and vision that defines my state. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I would like to advise that a hearing has been scheduled before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Thursday, March 7, 2013, at 10:00 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. The purpose of this hearing is to consider the nomination of Sally Jewell to be the Secretary of the Interior. For further information, please contact Sam Fowler at (202) 224-7571 or Abigail Campbell at (202) 224-4905.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, 2 years ago today thousands of Bahrainis took to the streets to call for political reform and an end to ongoing human rights abuses in their country. The government responded to these peaceful demonstrations not by addressing grievances or offering to work with the aggrieved, but by unleashing its state security forces upon them. The security forces fired on the protesters with tear gas and live ammunition; although many protesters were rounded up, arrested, and tortured, their spirit would not be broken. I am deeply disappointed that the government of Bahrain continues to stall, to stonewall, and to stymie any progress on addressing the root causes of the protesters' grievances. I shared the initial hopes of many Bahrainis, who viewed the establishment of the Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry, BICI, as a positive step on behalf of the government. I was encouraged when the final BICI report detailed the government's systemic use of intimidation, violence, abuse, and detention that documenting these abuses would lead to real reform. As outlined in the BICI report, over the weeks and months of its initial crackdown, more than 30 protesters were killed, nearly 1,800 were tortured, and 4,500 were fired from their jobs. Religious sites were destroyed and doctors who treated injured protesters were arrested, tortured, and imprisoned. The Bahraini government has spent considerable time and resources to convince the world that progress has been made, but I am sorry to say that the facts do not bear this out. Banning peaceful protests is not progress. Using tear gas as a weapon is not progress. Shooting teenagers is not progress. There is, quite frankly, little to be optimistic about if one examines the regime's track record over the last 2 years. According to the Project on Middle East Democracy, POMED, the government of Bahrain has only fully implemented three of 26 recommendations in the BICI report. Even worse, POMED found no meaningful progress whatsoever toward six of the BICI recommendations. The Bahrain Center for Human Rights similarly finds that the government of Bahrain has taken only superficial steps ``while continuing to commit the same human rights violations.'' Although the Bahraini government offered to engage in a national dialogue, my staff and I have read reports that the government may only be planning to moderate a discussion between political parties, rather than act as a full and productive participant in the dialogue. I sincerely hope that is not the case, and I call on the government of Bahrain to live up to its rhetoric, engage in genuine and sustained dialogue, and work to see that real progress is made. As a first step to restoring some of the trust it has lost, the Bahraini government should immediately implement all 26 BICI report recommendations and immediately release all political prisoners in Bahrain. After 2 years, surely the government of Bahrain is tired of fighting its own people--people who wish nothing more than to have a greater voice in their political process. The government may be surprised that this fight has lasted 2 years, but I am not. My staff and I have met with some of them and know them to be passionate, devoted to their cause, and willing to face continued persecution for what they believe. Sometimes folks ask me why I care so much about such a small island country or why America should concern itself with Bahrain's internal politics. I explain to them that Bahrain may be small, but that it is a key ally in a troubled and volatile region. I also explain that the regime's current strategy of violence and repression is bound for failure, and that Bahrain must reform to remain stable. If America has learned anything in the last few decades it is that continuing to support governments that use violence, torture and repression to stifle dissent is short sighted. Washington must instead use what influence it has to push such countries toward more representative forms of government, not just because it is the right thing to do for the citizens of those countries, but because it is the right thing to do for this country. That is why this issue remains so important to me and why I hope that next year, on this date, I can come to the Senate floor and talk about the many new reforms in place instead of the Bahraini government's continued repression of its people.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by Senators Paul, McConnell, and Merkley in introducing the Industrial Hemp Farming Act of 2013. As some folks will recall, I introduced a similar bill as an amendment to the Senate Farm Bill last year in an attempt to empower American farmers and increase domestic economic activity. Unfortunately, this amendment didn't receive a vote. Doubly unfortunate is the fact that a senseless regulation that flunks the common-sense test is still on our nation's books. Members of Congress hear a lot about how dumb regulations are hurting economic growth and job creation. The current ban on growing industrial hemp makes no sense at all, and what is worse, this regulation is hurting job creation in rural America and increasing our trade deficit. If my colleagues take the time to learn about this outrageous restriction on free enterprise, I am sure most senators would say that what I am talking about is the poster child for dumb regulation. The only thing standing in the way of taking advantage of this profitable crop is a lingering misunderstanding about its use. The bill my colleagues and I have filed will end this ridiculous regulation. Right now, the United States is importing over $10 million in hemp products to use in textiles, foods, paper products, and construction materials. We are importing a crop that U.S. farmers could be profitably growing right here at home, if not for government rules prohibiting it. Our neighbors to the north certainly see the potential for this product. In 2010, the Canadian government injected over $700,000 into their blossoming hemp industry to increase the size of their hemp crop and fortify the inroads they have made into U.S. markets. It was a good bet. U.S. imports have consistently grown over the past decade, increasing by 300 percent in 10 years, and from 2009 to 2010 they grew 35 percent. The number of acres in Canada devoted to growing hemp nearly doubled from 2011 to 2012. So it should come as no surprise that the United States imports around 90 percent of its hemp from Canada. Now, I know it is tough for some members of Congress to talk about hemp and not connect it to marijuana. I want to point out that even though they come from the same species of plant, there are major differences between them. You know, the Chihuahua and St. Bernard come from the same species, too, Canis lupus familiaris, but no one is going to confuse them. Also, the domestic dog is a subspecies of the gray wolf, Canis lupus, and no one is going to confuse those two either. So let's recognize the real differences between hemp and marijuana, and focus on the benefits from producing domestically the hemp we already use. Under our bill, the production of industrial hemp would still be regulated, but it would be done by States, not the Federal Government. Pro-hemp legislation has been introduced in eight states, and several others have already removed barriers to industrial hemp production. 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% THC content. The bottom line is that no one is going to get high on industrial hemp. 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. Hemp has been a profitable commodity in many other countries. In addition to Canada, Australia also permits hemp production and the growth in that sector helped their agricultural base survive when the tobacco industry dried up. Over 30 countries in Europe, Asia, and North and South America currently permit farmers to grow hemp, and China is the world's largest producer. In fact, the U.S. is the only industrialized nation that prohibits farmers from growing hemp. This seems silly considering that we are the world's leading consumer of hemp products, with total sales of food, health and beauty products exceeding $52 million in 2012, with 16.5 percent growth over 2011. My home State of Oregon is home to some major manufacturers of hemp products, including Living Harvest, one of the largest hemp foods producers in the country. Business has been so brisk there that the Portland Business Journal recently rated them as one of the fastest- growing local companies. There are similar success stories in many states. One company in North Carolina has begun incorporating hemp into building materials, reportedly making them both stronger and more environmentally friendly. Another company in California produces hemp-based fiberboard. No country is better than the U.S. at developing, perfecting, and expanding markets for its products. As that market grows, it should be domestically-produced hemp that supplies its growth. I would like to share with colleagues an editorial by one of the leading newspapers in my state, the Bend Bulletin. Here's what they had to say about legalizing industrial hemp: ``producers of hemp products in the United States are forced to import it. That denies American farmers the opportunity to compete in the market. It is like surrendering the competitive edge to China and Canada, where it can be grown legally.'' The Bend Bulletin's editorial went on to say: ``Legalizing industrial hemp does not have to be a slippery slope toward legalizing marijuana. It can be a start toward removing regulatory burdens limiting Oregon farmers from competing in the world market.'' The opportunities for American farmers and businesses are obvious here. Let's boost revenues for farmers and reduce the costs for businesses around the country that use this product. Let's put more people to work growing and processing an environmentally-friendly crop, with a ready market in the United States. For all the reasons I just described, I urge my colleagues to join Senators Paul, McConnell, and Merkley and me by cosponsoring 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 rise today to introduce the Geothermal Expansion Production Act of 2013. This legislation is the same as a bill reported favorably by voice vote by the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources during the 112th Congress. This bill has bi- partisan support, with Senators Murkowski, Begich, Crapo, Risch, and Merkley, joining me as original cosponsors. The legislation will help to encourage the production of geothermal energy from public lands. With limited exceptions, current law requires that all Federal lands to be leased for the development of geothermal resources be offered on a competitive basis. BLM must hold a competitive lease sale every 2 years. If bids are not received for the lands offered, BLM must offer the lands on a noncompetitive basis for 2 years. This legislation extends the authority for noncompetitive leasing in cases where a geothermal developer wants to gain access to Federal land immediately adjacent to land on which that developer has proven that there is a geothermal resource that will be developed. This will allow a geothermal project to expand onto adjacent land, if necessary, to increase the amount of geothermal energy it can develop. It will also add to the royalties and rents that the project pays to the U.S. Treasury. The reason for this legislation is to allow the rapid expansion of already identified geothermal resources without the additional delays of competitive leasing and without opening up those adjacent properties to speculative bidders who have no interest in actually developing the resource, only in extracting as much money as they can from the existing geothermal developer. The bill is not a give away at taxpayer expense. The bill limits the amount of adjacent Federal land that can be leased to 640 acres. This lease on Federal land must be acquired at fair-market value. The bill also requires the lease holder to pay the higher annual rental rate associated with competitive leases even though this new parcel is not being competitively leased. Again, the purpose of this higher rental rate is to ensure that taxpayers will get the revenue due to them from the use of their public lands. I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting this important legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Geothermal Expansion Production Act of 2013. This legislation is the same as a bill reported favorably by voice vote by the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources during the 112th Congress. This bill has bi- partisan support, with Senators Murkowski, Begich, Crapo, Risch, and Merkley, joining me as original cosponsors. The legislation will help to encourage the production of geothermal energy from public lands. With limited exceptions, current law requires that all Federal lands to be leased for the development of geothermal resources be offered on a competitive basis. BLM must hold a competitive lease sale every 2 years. If bids are not received for the lands offered, BLM must offer the lands on a noncompetitive basis for 2 years. This legislation extends the authority for noncompetitive leasing in cases where a geothermal developer wants to gain access to Federal land immediately adjacent to land on which that developer has proven that there is a geothermal resource that will be developed. This will allow a geothermal project to expand onto adjacent land, if necessary, to increase the amount of geothermal energy it can develop. It will also add to the royalties and rents that the project pays to the U.S. Treasury. The reason for this legislation is to allow the rapid expansion of already identified geothermal resources without the additional delays of competitive leasing and without opening up those adjacent properties to speculative bidders who have no interest in actually developing the resource, only in extracting as much money as they can from the existing geothermal developer. The bill is not a give away at taxpayer expense. The bill limits the amount of adjacent Federal land that can be leased to 640 acres. This lease on Federal land must be acquired at fair-market value. The bill also requires the lease holder to pay the higher annual rental rate associated with competitive leases even though this new parcel is not being competitively leased. Again, the purpose of this higher rental rate is to ensure that taxpayers will get the revenue due to them from the use of their public lands. I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting this important legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by Senators Paul, McConnell, and Merkley in introducing the Industrial Hemp Farming Act of 2013. As some folks will recall, I introduced a similar bill as an amendment to the Senate Farm Bill last year in an attempt to empower American farmers and increase domestic economic activity. Unfortunately, this amendment didn't receive a vote. Doubly unfortunate is the fact that a senseless regulation that flunks the common-sense test is still on our nation's books. Members of Congress hear a lot about how dumb regulations are hurting economic growth and job creation. The current ban on growing industrial hemp makes no sense at all, and what is worse, this regulation is hurting job creation in rural America and increasing our trade deficit. If my colleagues take the time to learn about this outrageous restriction on free enterprise, I am sure most senators would say that what I am talking about is the poster child for dumb regulation. The only thing standing in the way of taking advantage of this profitable crop is a lingering misunderstanding about its use. The bill my colleagues and I have filed will end this ridiculous regulation. Right now, the United States is importing over $10 million in hemp products to use in textiles, foods, paper products, and construction materials. We are importing a crop that U.S. farmers could be profitably growing right here at home, if not for government rules prohibiting it. Our neighbors to the north certainly see the potential for this product. In 2010, the Canadian government injected over $700,000 into their blossoming hemp industry to increase the size of their hemp crop and fortify the inroads they have made into U.S. markets. It was a good bet. U.S. imports have consistently grown over the past decade, increasing by 300 percent in 10 years, and from 2009 to 2010 they grew 35 percent. The number of acres in Canada devoted to growing hemp nearly doubled from 2011 to 2012. So it should come as no surprise that the United States imports around 90 percent of its hemp from Canada. Now, I know it is tough for some members of Congress to talk about hemp and not connect it to marijuana. I want to point out that even though they come from the same species of plant, there are major differences between them. You know, the Chihuahua and St. Bernard come from the same species, too, Canis lupus familiaris, but no one is going to confuse them. Also, the domestic dog is a subspecies of the gray wolf, Canis lupus, and no one is going to confuse those two either. So let's recognize the real differences between hemp and marijuana, and focus on the benefits from producing domestically the hemp we already use. Under our bill, the production of industrial hemp would still be regulated, but it would be done by States, not the Federal Government. Pro-hemp legislation has been introduced in eight states, and several others have already removed barriers to industrial hemp production. 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% THC content. The bottom line is that no one is going to get high on industrial hemp. 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. Hemp has been a profitable commodity in many other countries. In addition to Canada, Australia also permits hemp production and the growth in that sector helped their agricultural base survive when the tobacco industry dried up. Over 30 countries in Europe, Asia, and North and South America currently permit farmers to grow hemp, and China is the world's largest producer. In fact, the U.S. is the only industrialized nation that prohibits farmers from growing hemp. This seems silly considering that we are the world's leading consumer of hemp products, with total sales of food, health and beauty products exceeding $52 million in 2012, with 16.5 percent growth over 2011. My home State of Oregon is home to some major manufacturers of hemp products, including Living Harvest, one of the largest hemp foods producers in the country. Business has been so brisk there that the Portland Business Journal recently rated them as one of the fastest- growing local companies. There are similar success stories in many states. One company in North Carolina has begun incorporating hemp into building materials, reportedly making them both stronger and more environmentally friendly. Another company in California produces hemp-based fiberboard. No country is better than the U.S. at developing, perfecting, and expanding markets for its products. As that market grows, it should be domestically-produced hemp that supplies its growth. I would like to share with colleagues an editorial by one of the leading newspapers in my state, the Bend Bulletin. Here's what they had to say about legalizing industrial hemp: ``producers of hemp products in the United States are forced to import it. That denies American farmers the opportunity to compete in the market. It is like surrendering the competitive edge to China and Canada, where it can be grown legally.'' The Bend Bulletin's editorial went on to say: ``Legalizing industrial hemp does not have to be a slippery slope toward legalizing marijuana. It can be a start toward removing regulatory burdens limiting Oregon farmers from competing in the world market.'' The opportunities for American farmers and businesses are obvious here. Let's boost revenues for farmers and reduce the costs for businesses around the country that use this product. Let's put more people to work growing and processing an environmentally-friendly crop, with a ready market in the United States. For all the reasons I just described, I urge my colleagues to join Senators Paul, McConnell, and Merkley and me by cosponsoring this bill. 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 re-introduce three bills that will better protect unique and important areas in the beautiful state of Oregon. Two of these passed out of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee the last two Congresses. I am pleased to again be joined on these bills with my colleague from Oregon, Senator MerklEy. I look forward to working with Senator Merkley, other colleagues and other supporters of the bills to keep up the fight for these special places in Oregon. The first bill I am introducing--the Oregon Caves Revitalization Act of 2013--will enhance the existing Oregon Caves National Monument to protect this majestic site for future generations. The bill expands the boundary of the National Park Service land to create the Oregon Caves National Monument and Preserve. A Presidential Proclamation in 1909 established 480 acres of natural wonder as the Oregon Caves National Monument in the botanically-rich Siskiyou Mountains. At the time, the focus was on the unique subsurface resources, and the small, rectangular boundary was thought to be adequate to protect the cave. However, scientific research has since provided much greater insight into the cave's ecology and its hydrological processes, for which 480 acres is inadequate. The National Park Service formally proposed boundary modification numerous times--in 1939, 1949, and 2000. My bill expands protections in and around the Oregon Caves National Monument. The entirety of the Cave Creek Watershed would be included in the park site, transferring management of 4,070 acres of United States Forest Service land to the National Park Service. Hunters will still have recreational access to this land since it will be designated a Preserve. And the expansion of the Monument's boundary would be incomplete without protecting the water that enters the cave so as to preserve the cave's resources. My legislation would designate at least 9.6 miles of rivers and tributaries as Wild, Scenic, or Recreational, under the federal Wild and Scenic Rivers Act--including the first Wild and Scenic subterranean river, the ``River Styx.'' A perennial stream, the River Styx--an underground portion of Cave Creek--flows through part of the cave and is one of the dynamic natural forces at work in the National Monument. In addition, this bill would authorize the retirement of existing grazing allotments. The current grazing permitee, Phil Krouse's family, has had the Big Grayback Grazing Allotment, 19,703 acres, since 1937. Mr. Krouse has publicly stated that he would look favorably upon retirement with private compensation for his allotment, which my legislation will allow to proceed. The Oregon Caves National Monument offers important contributions to Southern Oregon and the nation. The cave ecosystem provides habitat for one of the highest concentrations of biological diversity anywhere. And as the longest marble cave open to the public west of the Continental Divide, the Monument receives over 80,000 visitors annually. A larger Monument boundary will help showcase more fully the recreational opportunities on the above-ground lands within the proposed Monument boundary. I want to express my thanks to the conservation and business communities of southern Oregon, who have worked diligently to protect these lands and waters. My second bill is the Devil's Staircase Wilderness Act of 2013. Under this bill, approximately 30,500 acres of rugged, wild, pristine, and remote land surrounding the Wasson Creek area will be designated wilderness. In fact the area is so rugged that federal land managers have withdrawn this landslide-prone forest from all timber activity numerous times. At the heart of this coastal rainforest lies Devil's Staircase, a crystal clear waterfall that cascades over slab after slab of sandstone. The Devil's Staircase proposal typifies what Wilderness in Oregon is all about. The proposed Devil's Staircase Wilderness is the finest old-growth forest remaining in Oregon's Coast Range, boasting huge Douglas-fir, cedar and hemlock. The ecological significance of this treasure is as clear as the water running through Devil's Staircase. The land is protected as a Late-Successional Reserve by the Northwest Forest Plan, as critical habitat for the northern spotted owl and marbled murrelet, and as an Area of Critical Environmental Concern by the Bureau of Land Management. Preserving these majestic forests as Wilderness for their wildlife and spectacular scenery not only matches the goals of the existing land management plans but also permanently protects this natural gem for future generations. The wilderness designation is needed to protect these areas permanently. My bill would not only protect the forests surrounding Wasson Creek but would also designate approximately 4.5 miles of Franklin Creek and approximately 10.1 miles of Wasson Creek as Wild and Scenic Rivers. Franklin Creek, a critically important tributary to the Umpqua River, is one of the best examples of pristine salmon habitat left in Oregon. Together with Wasson Creek, these two streams in the Devil's Staircase area deserve Wild and Scenic River designation by Congress. The third bill I am introducing is the Oregon Treasures Act of 2013. This bill seeks to provide protections for five significant areas in Oregon. They are the Chetco River, the Molalla River, the Rogue River, and Horse Heaven and Cathedral Rock. Each of these parts of the bill aim to protect natural treasures in Oregon, preserve them for use and enjoyment for generations to come, and build upon the economic opportunities they provide for their local communities. The Oregon Treasures Act of 2013 includes a provision to protect two of Oregon's natural treasures, Cathedral Rock and Horse Heaven. This wilderness designation has been introduced in the two most recent Congresses. The Cathedral Rock and Horse Heaven wilderness proposal will do more than simply protect these areas. It will also help Oregon's economy, because visitors from all over the world come to my state to experience firsthand the unique scenic beauty of place like the lands preserved by this bill. This legislation will consolidate what is currently a splintered ownership of land in this area and protect 17,340 acres of new Wilderness along the Lower John Day River. The fractured land ownership in this area makes it difficult for visitors to fully appreciate these areas when they hike, fish or hunt there because of the scattered and misunderstood lines of private and public ownership. This bill will solve that problem and make these lands more inviting to visitors while giving the landowners more contiguous property to call home. The area in question is stunning. The Cathedral Rock and Horse Heaven Wilderness proposals encompass dramatic basalt cliffs and rolling hills of juniper, sagebrush and native grasses. These new areas build on the desert Spring Basin Wilderness that was established in 2009 as a result of legislation I introduced, and are located directly across the John Day River from Spring Basin. With 500 miles of undammed waters, the John Day River is the second- longest free-flowing river in the continental United States and is a place that is cherished by Oregonians. The Lower John Day Wild and Scenic River offers world-class opportunities for outdoor recreation as well as crucial wildlife habitat for elk, mule deer, bighorn sheep and native fish such as salmon and steelhead trout. Through land consolidation between public and private landowners, this legislation will allow for better management and easier public access for this important natural treasure. With the current fragmentation of public and private land ownership in the area, river campsites are limited. Many federal lands among them can't be reached by the hikers, campers and other outdoors recreationists who could most appreciate them. With the equal-value land exchanges included in this bill, public lands would be consolidated into two new Wilderness areas. This would enhance public safety, improve land management, and increase public access and recreational opportunities. I want to recognize that some have raised concerns about the lack of roaded access to Cathedral Rock. I have engaged the private landowners on this issue to seek a solution. Whatever the outcome, I do know that the Cathedral Rock and Horse Heaven proposal will create an incredible, new heritage for public lands recreationists who are an important factor in keeping Oregon's economy healthy and thriving. Rafters of the John Day River can attest to the need for more campsites and public access to the Cathedral Rock area. Backcountry hunters will be able to scan the hillsides for elk, deer and game-birds without having to worry about accidentally trespassing on someone's private land. Anglers will be able to access nearly 5 miles of the John Day River that today are only reachable from privately owned lands. Likewise, such a solution ensures that local landowners can manage their lands effectively without running across unwitting trespassers. One good example of the value of these land swaps is Young Life's Washington Family Ranch. This Ranch is home to a Christian youth camp that welcomes over 20,000 kids to the lower John Day area each year. This bill sets out private and public land boundaries that can be clearly seen on the ground and these boundaries create a safer area for campers on the Ranch; this serves the children who visit the area well and ensures the continued viability of the Ranch, which, in turn, provides big economic dividends to the local community. The Cathedral Rock and Horse Heaven Wilderness proposal is described as ``win-win-win'' by many stakeholders--nearly five miles of new river access for the public and protected land for outdoor enthusiasts; better management for private landowners and public agencies; and important habitat protections for sensitive and endangered species. This proposal is an example of the positive solutions that can result when varied, bipartisan interests in a community come together to craft solutions that will work for everyone. I especially want to thank the Oregon Natural Desert Association, Young Life, and Matt Smith for their role in developing this collaborative solution that will benefit all Oregonians. The Cathedral Rock and Horse Heaven Wilderness areas will help make sure that this rural area will enjoy the benefits that permanently connecting these disparate pieces of natural landscape will bring for generations to come. Additionally the Oregon Treasures Act protects the Chetco River. For over a decade, I've advocated for protections for the Chetco and other threatened waterways in Southwest Oregon. Part of the Oregon Treasures Act of 2013 would withdraw about three miles of the Chetco River from mineral entry, while upgrading the designations for some portions. This river is under persistent threat from out-of-state suction dredge miners. In 2010, the group American Rivers listed the Chetco as the seventh most endangered river in the country because of those threats. Withdrawing these portions of the river from future mineral entry will prevent future harmful mining claims and make sure that those claims that already exist are valid. The Chetco is also hugely important for salmon habitat and local sport fishing. The passage of this legislation would mean protecting that habitat, and promoting the continued success of the fishing industry throughout the West Coast. I am pleased the Obama administration has taken some steps to protect this area, but the passage of this legislation is needed to ensure long-term protection for this important river. Next, the Oregon Treasures Act of 2013 would add 60,000 acres of new wilderness to the existing Wild Rogue Wilderness. The Wild Rogue Wilderness expansion would protect habitat for bald eagles, osprey, spotted owls, bear, elk, cougar, wild coho, wild Chinook, wild steelhead, green sturgeon, and many others. The Wild Rogue Wilderness and the Rogue River that runs through it embody one of the nation's premier recreation destinations, famous for the free flowing waters which provide numerous rafting and fishing opportunities. The headwaters of the Rogue River start in one of Oregon's other great gems--Crater Lake National Park--and the river ultimately empties into the Pacific Ocean, near Gold Beach on Oregon's southwest coast. Along that stretch, the Rogue River flows through one of the most spectacular canyons and diverse natural areas in the United States. The Rogue River is a world class rafting river, offering everything from one day trips to week long trips through deep forested canyons. On the land, the Rogue River trail is also one of Oregon's most renowned backpacking routes. The legislation would also protect an additional 143 miles of tributaries that feed the Rogue River with cold clean water. Of that number, 93 miles would be designated Wild and Scenic Rivers and an additional 50 miles would be protected from mining. The areas receiving protection include Galice Creek, Little Windy Creek, Jenny Creek, Long Gulch and 36 other tributaries of the Rogue. The Rogue River is one of Oregon's most iconic and beloved rivers. It is a river that teems with salmon leaping up rapids to spawn, and finds rafters down those very same rapids at other times of the year. I previously introduced legislation to protect the Rogue River tributaries in the last three Congresses. Since it was first introduced, I have worked with the timber industry and conservationists to find a compromise that protects one of America's treasures with additional wilderness designations and more targeted protections for the Rogue's tributaries. I am pleased that 95 local businesses--and over 120 organizations and business in total--support protecting the Wild Rogue, and that support grows every day. Many of those businesses directly benefit from the Wild Rogue and the Rogue River. As I often say, protecting these gems is not just good for the environment, but also good for the economy. These protected landscapes are powerhouses of the recreation economy that draws visitors from around the world to this region and the Rogue River is one of Oregon's most important sport and commercial fisheries. The Wild Rogue is the second largest salmon fishery in Oregon behind the Columbia. The Wild Rogue provides the quality of life and recreational opportunities that create an economic engine that attracts businesses and brings in tourists from around the world. The Rogue River supports more than 400 local jobs in nearby communities like Grants Pass. By protecting the Wild Rogue landscape and the tributaries that feed the mighty Rogue River, Congress will ensure that future generations can raft, fish, hike and enjoy the Wild Rogue as it is enjoyed today and that the recreational economy of this region remains strong. Lastly, there is another provision in the bill to designate segments of Oregon's Molalla River as Wild and Scenic. An approximately 15.1- mile segment of the Molalla River and an approximately 6.2-mile segment of Table Rock Fork Molalla River would be designated as a recreational river under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. Including these river segments would protect a popular Oregon destination that provides abundant recreational activities that help fuel the recreation economy that is so important to the communities along the river. The scenic beauty of the Molalla River provides a backdrop for hiking, mountain biking, camping, and horseback riding, while the waters of the river are a popular destination for fishing, kayaking, and whitewater rafting enthusiasts. This legislation would not only preserve this area as a recreation destination, but would also protect the river habitat of the Chinook salmon and Steelhead trout, along with the wildlife habitat surrounding the river, home to the northern spotted owl, the pileated woodpecker, golden and bald eagles, deer, elk, the pacific giant salamander, and many others. The Molalla River is also the source of clean drinking water for the towns of Molalla and Canby, Oregon. Protecting the approximately 21.3 miles of the Molalla River will provide the residents of these Oregon towns with the assurance that they will continue to receive clean drinking water. I would like to reiterate my continued appreciation for the Molalla River Alliance--a coalition of more than 48 member-organizations that recognize that this river is a jewel and have set out to protect it. This Alliance made sure that irrigators, city councilors, the mayor, businesses and environmentalists all came together on this. Oregon's wildlands play an increasingly important role in the economic development of our state, especially in traditionally rural areas east of the Cascades. Visitors come from thousands of miles away to hike, fish, raft and hunt in Oregon's desert Wilderness. Beyond tourism, the rich quality of life and the diverse natural amenities that we enjoy as Oregonians are key to attracting new businesses to Oregon. And with all these bills, I express my gratitude for the many groups and individuals who have worked diligently to protect these special places. I look forward to working with Senator Merkley, Representative DeFazio, Representative Schrader and other colleagues and the bill's other supporters to keep up the fight for these unique places in Oregon and get these pieces of legislation to the President's desk for his signature.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I rise to re-introduce three bills that will better protect unique and important areas in the beautiful state of Oregon. Two of these passed out of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee the last two Congresses. I am pleased to again be joined on these bills with my colleague from Oregon, Senator MerklEy. I look forward to working with Senator Merkley, other colleagues and other supporters of the bills to keep up the fight for these special places in Oregon. The first bill I am introducing--the Oregon Caves Revitalization Act of 2013--will enhance the existing Oregon Caves National Monument to protect this majestic site for future generations. The bill expands the boundary of the National Park Service land to create the Oregon Caves National Monument and Preserve. A Presidential Proclamation in 1909 established 480 acres of natural wonder as the Oregon Caves National Monument in the botanically-rich Siskiyou Mountains. At the time, the focus was on the unique subsurface resources, and the small, rectangular boundary was thought to be adequate to protect the cave. However, scientific research has since provided much greater insight into the cave's ecology and its hydrological processes, for which 480 acres is inadequate. The National Park Service formally proposed boundary modification numerous times--in 1939, 1949, and 2000. My bill expands protections in and around the Oregon Caves National Monument. The entirety of the Cave Creek Watershed would be included in the park site, transferring management of 4,070 acres of United States Forest Service land to the National Park Service. Hunters will still have recreational access to this land since it will be designated a Preserve. And the expansion of the Monument's boundary would be incomplete without protecting the water that enters the cave so as to preserve the cave's resources. My legislation would designate at least 9.6 miles of rivers and tributaries as Wild, Scenic, or Recreational, under the federal Wild and Scenic Rivers Act--including the first Wild and Scenic subterranean river, the ``River Styx.'' A perennial stream, the River Styx--an underground portion of Cave Creek--flows through part of the cave and is one of the dynamic natural forces at work in the National Monument. In addition, this bill would authorize the retirement of existing grazing allotments. The current grazing permitee, Phil Krouse's family, has had the Big Grayback Grazing Allotment, 19,703 acres, since 1937. Mr. Krouse has publicly stated that he would look favorably upon retirement with private compensation for his allotment, which my legislation will allow to proceed. The Oregon Caves National Monument offers important contributions to Southern Oregon and the nation. The cave ecosystem provides habitat for one of the highest concentrations of biological diversity anywhere. And as the longest marble cave open to the public west of the Continental Divide, the Monument receives over 80,000 visitors annually. A larger Monument boundary will help showcase more fully the recreational opportunities on the above-ground lands within the proposed Monument boundary. I want to express my thanks to the conservation and business communities of southern Oregon, who have worked diligently to protect these lands and waters. My second bill is the Devil's Staircase Wilderness Act of 2013. Under this bill, approximately 30,500 acres of rugged, wild, pristine, and remote land surrounding the Wasson Creek area will be designated wilderness. In fact the area is so rugged that federal land managers have withdrawn this landslide-prone forest from all timber activity numerous times. At the heart of this coastal rainforest lies Devil's Staircase, a crystal clear waterfall that cascades over slab after slab of sandstone. The Devil's Staircase proposal typifies what Wilderness in Oregon is all about. The proposed Devil's Staircase Wilderness is the finest old-growth forest remaining in Oregon's Coast Range, boasting huge Douglas-fir, cedar and hemlock. The ecological significance of this treasure is as clear as the water running through Devil's Staircase. The land is protected as a Late-Successional Reserve by the Northwest Forest Plan, as critical habitat for the northern spotted owl and marbled murrelet, and as an Area of Critical Environmental Concern by the Bureau of Land Management. Preserving these majestic forests as Wilderness for their wildlife and spectacular scenery not only matches the goals of the existing land management plans but also permanently protects this natural gem for future generations. The wilderness designation is needed to protect these areas permanently. My bill would not only protect the forests surrounding Wasson Creek but would also designate approximately 4.5 miles of Franklin Creek and approximately 10.1 miles of Wasson Creek as Wild and Scenic Rivers. Franklin Creek, a critically important tributary to the Umpqua River, is one of the best examples of pristine salmon habitat left in Oregon. Together with Wasson Creek, these two streams in the Devil's Staircase area deserve Wild and Scenic River designation by Congress. The third bill I am introducing is the Oregon Treasures Act of 2013. This bill seeks to provide protections for five significant areas in Oregon. They are the Chetco River, the Molalla River, the Rogue River, and Horse Heaven and Cathedral Rock. Each of these parts of the bill aim to protect natural treasures in Oregon, preserve them for use and enjoyment for generations to come, and build upon the economic opportunities they provide for their local communities. The Oregon Treasures Act of 2013 includes a provision to protect two of Oregon's natural treasures, Cathedral Rock and Horse Heaven. This wilderness designation has been introduced in the two most recent Congresses. The Cathedral Rock and Horse Heaven wilderness proposal will do more than simply protect these areas. It will also help Oregon's economy, because visitors from all over the world come to my state to experience firsthand the unique scenic beauty of place like the lands preserved by this bill. This legislation will consolidate what is currently a splintered ownership of land in this area and protect 17,340 acres of new Wilderness along the Lower John Day River. The fractured land ownership in this area makes it difficult for visitors to fully appreciate these areas when they hike, fish or hunt there because of the scattered and misunderstood lines of private and public ownership. This bill will solve that problem and make these lands more inviting to visitors while giving the landowners more contiguous property to call home. The area in question is stunning. The Cathedral Rock and Horse Heaven Wilderness proposals encompass dramatic basalt cliffs and rolling hills of juniper, sagebrush and native grasses. These new areas build on the desert Spring Basin Wilderness that was established in 2009 as a result of legislation I introduced, and are located directly across the John Day River from Spring Basin. With 500 miles of undammed waters, the John Day River is the second- longest free-flowing river in the continental United States and is a place that is cherished by Oregonians. The Lower John Day Wild and Scenic River offers world-class opportunities for outdoor recreation as well as crucial wildlife habitat for elk, mule deer, bighorn sheep and native fish such as salmon and steelhead trout. Through land consolidation between public and private landowners, this legislation will allow for better management and easier public access for this important natural treasure. With the current fragmentation of public and private land ownership in the area, river campsites are limited. Many federal lands among them can't be reached by the hikers, campers and other outdoors recreationists who could most appreciate them. With the equal-value land exchanges included in this bill, public lands would be consolidated into two new Wilderness areas. This would enhance public safety, improve land management, and increase public access and recreational opportunities. I want to recognize that some have raised concerns about the lack of roaded access to Cathedral Rock. I have engaged the private landowners on this issue to seek a solution. Whatever the outcome, I do know that the Cathedral Rock and Horse Heaven proposal will create an incredible, new heritage for public lands recreationists who are an important factor in keeping Oregon's economy healthy and thriving. Rafters of the John Day River can attest to the need for more campsites and public access to the Cathedral Rock area. Backcountry hunters will be able to scan the hillsides for elk, deer and game-birds without having to worry about accidentally trespassing on someone's private land. Anglers will be able to access nearly 5 miles of the John Day River that today are only reachable from privately owned lands. Likewise, such a solution ensures that local landowners can manage their lands effectively without running across unwitting trespassers. One good example of the value of these land swaps is Young Life's Washington Family Ranch. This Ranch is home to a Christian youth camp that welcomes over 20,000 kids to the lower John Day area each year. This bill sets out private and public land boundaries that can be clearly seen on the ground and these boundaries create a safer area for campers on the Ranch; this serves the children who visit the area well and ensures the continued viability of the Ranch, which, in turn, provides big economic dividends to the local community. The Cathedral Rock and Horse Heaven Wilderness proposal is described as ``win-win-win'' by many stakeholders--nearly five miles of new river access for the public and protected land for outdoor enthusiasts; better management for private landowners and public agencies; and important habitat protections for sensitive and endangered species. This proposal is an example of the positive solutions that can result when varied, bipartisan interests in a community come together to craft solutions that will work for everyone. I especially want to thank the Oregon Natural Desert Association, Young Life, and Matt Smith for their role in developing this collaborative solution that will benefit all Oregonians. The Cathedral Rock and Horse Heaven Wilderness areas will help make sure that this rural area will enjoy the benefits that permanently connecting these disparate pieces of natural landscape will bring for generations to come. Additionally the Oregon Treasures Act protects the Chetco River. For over a decade, I've advocated for protections for the Chetco and other threatened waterways in Southwest Oregon. Part of the Oregon Treasures Act of 2013 would withdraw about three miles of the Chetco River from mineral entry, while upgrading the designations for some portions. This river is under persistent threat from out-of-state suction dredge miners. In 2010, the group American Rivers listed the Chetco as the seventh most endangered river in the country because of those threats. Withdrawing these portions of the river from future mineral entry will prevent future harmful mining claims and make sure that those claims that already exist are valid. The Chetco is also hugely important for salmon habitat and local sport fishing. The passage of this legislation would mean protecting that habitat, and promoting the continued success of the fishing industry throughout the West Coast. I am pleased the Obama administration has taken some steps to protect this area, but the passage of this legislation is needed to ensure long-term protection for this important river. Next, the Oregon Treasures Act of 2013 would add 60,000 acres of new wilderness to the existing Wild Rogue Wilderness. The Wild Rogue Wilderness expansion would protect habitat for bald eagles, osprey, spotted owls, bear, elk, cougar, wild coho, wild Chinook, wild steelhead, green sturgeon, and many others. The Wild Rogue Wilderness and the Rogue River that runs through it embody one of the nation's premier recreation destinations, famous for the free flowing waters which provide numerous rafting and fishing opportunities. The headwaters of the Rogue River start in one of Oregon's other great gems--Crater Lake National Park--and the river ultimately empties into the Pacific Ocean, near Gold Beach on Oregon's southwest coast. Along that stretch, the Rogue River flows through one of the most spectacular canyons and diverse natural areas in the United States. The Rogue River is a world class rafting river, offering everything from one day trips to week long trips through deep forested canyons. On the land, the Rogue River trail is also one of Oregon's most renowned backpacking routes. The legislation would also protect an additional 143 miles of tributaries that feed the Rogue River with cold clean water. Of that number, 93 miles would be designated Wild and Scenic Rivers and an additional 50 miles would be protected from mining. The areas receiving protection include Galice Creek, Little Windy Creek, Jenny Creek, Long Gulch and 36 other tributaries of the Rogue. The Rogue River is one of Oregon's most iconic and beloved rivers. It is a river that teems with salmon leaping up rapids to spawn, and finds rafters down those very same rapids at other times of the year. I previously introduced legislation to protect the Rogue River tributaries in the last three Congresses. Since it was first introduced, I have worked with the timber industry and conservationists to find a compromise that protects one of America's treasures with additional wilderness designations and more targeted protections for the Rogue's tributaries. I am pleased that 95 local businesses--and over 120 organizations and business in total--support protecting the Wild Rogue, and that support grows every day. Many of those businesses directly benefit from the Wild Rogue and the Rogue River. As I often say, protecting these gems is not just good for the environment, but also good for the economy. These protected landscapes are powerhouses of the recreation economy that draws visitors from around the world to this region and the Rogue River is one of Oregon's most important sport and commercial fisheries. The Wild Rogue is the second largest salmon fishery in Oregon behind the Columbia. The Wild Rogue provides the quality of life and recreational opportunities that create an economic engine that attracts businesses and brings in tourists from around the world. The Rogue River supports more than 400 local jobs in nearby communities like Grants Pass. By protecting the Wild Rogue landscape and the tributaries that feed the mighty Rogue River, Congress will ensure that future generations can raft, fish, hike and enjoy the Wild Rogue as it is enjoyed today and that the recreational economy of this region remains strong. Lastly, there is another provision in the bill to designate segments of Oregon's Molalla River as Wild and Scenic. An approximately 15.1- mile segment of the Molalla River and an approximately 6.2-mile segment of Table Rock Fork Molalla River would be designated as a recreational river under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. Including these river segments would protect a popular Oregon destination that provides abundant recreational activities that help fuel the recreation economy that is so important to the communities along the river. The scenic beauty of the Molalla River provides a backdrop for hiking, mountain biking, camping, and horseback riding, while the waters of the river are a popular destination for fishing, kayaking, and whitewater rafting enthusiasts. This legislation would not only preserve this area as a recreation destination, but would also protect the river habitat of the Chinook salmon and Steelhead trout, along with the wildlife habitat surrounding the river, home to the northern spotted owl, the pileated woodpecker, golden and bald eagles, deer, elk, the pacific giant salamander, and many others. The Molalla River is also the source of clean drinking water for the towns of Molalla and Canby, Oregon. Protecting the approximately 21.3 miles of the Molalla River will provide the residents of these Oregon towns with the assurance that they will continue to receive clean drinking water. I would like to reiterate my continued appreciation for the Molalla River Alliance--a coalition of more than 48 member-organizations that recognize that this river is a jewel and have set out to protect it. This Alliance made sure that irrigators, city councilors, the mayor, businesses and environmentalists all came together on this. Oregon's wildlands play an increasingly important role in the economic development of our state, especially in traditionally rural areas east of the Cascades. Visitors come from thousands of miles away to hike, fish, raft and hunt in Oregon's desert Wilderness. Beyond tourism, the rich quality of life and the diverse natural amenities that we enjoy as Oregonians are key to attracting new businesses to Oregon. And with all these bills, I express my gratitude for the many groups and individuals who have worked diligently to protect these special places. I look forward to working with Senator Merkley, Representative DeFazio, Representative Schrader and other colleagues and the bill's other supporters to keep up the fight for these unique places in Oregon and get these pieces of legislation to the President's desk for his signature.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, on March 1, 2013, one of Oregon's most dedicated leaders will retire. I want to take a few minutes to pay tribute to a public servant and one of Oregon's foremost advocates for veterans, Jim Willis. Jim has worked selflessly to better the State and the nation. For 48 years, he has been helping others, from his two enlistments in the U.S. Air Force, including a tour of wartime service in South Vietnam, to a career with the Oregon State Police, to his time with the American Legion, and finally his leadership at the Oregon Department of Veterans Affairs, ODVA. After his service in Vietnam, Jim knew what it felt like to return home to a country where veterans were not always welcomed and at times forgotten. He understood the words of George Washington when he said, ``The willingness with which our young people are likely to serve in any war, no matter how justified, is directly proportional to how they perceive the veterans of earlier wars were treated and appreciated by their nation.'' This is why Jim championed funding for the Oregon Veterans' Home, pressed for veteran health care funding under the Federal VA system, increased financing limits on veterans' home loans, supported the construction of the Oregon Medal of Honor Memorial and Afghan-Iraqi Freedom Memorial, and initiated the construction of a second veterans home in Lebanon, Oregon. I cannot say enough about the distinguished efforts Jim has made over the last 23 years at ODVA on behalf of servicemembers and their families. With his direction, our heroes knew there were trained service officers in their county ready to assist them with benefits, home loans, and countless other issues. The trained professionals and the team he built at ODVA were always willing to help a veteran in a time of need. As President of the National Association of State Directors of Veterans Affairs, Jim coordinated these efforts nationally to assure veterans received what they worked so hard for. I am grateful to have had Jim as a partner in several endeavors at the Federal level, including the effort to put a halt to pension poachers who were stealing money and benefits from veterans under the guise of veterans' assistance. Even in retirement, Jim will continue to find ways to give back to the community. He will continue to serve on the American Legion National Cemetery Committee, on the Veteran of Foreign Wars National Resolutions Committee, and as Vice President of the Oregon World War II Memorial Foundation. I could not be prouder of Jim and his life's work. He embodies the best of Oregon and the best of a grateful nation. As our servicemembers continue to come home and reintegrate into society, I am confident the benefits and services they have earned will be available to them because of Jim and people like him. His dedication to veterans will continue to have a lasting impact on ODVA for years to come. Mr. President, I know Senator Merkley will be speaking after me to express his gratitude for Jim's many years of hard work. I'm proud to join my fellow Oregonians in recognizing the great service of Jim Willis and wishing him the best as he begins this new chapter in his life.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, in accordance with rule XXVI, paragraph 2, of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I submit the rules governing the procedure of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources for publication in the Congressional Record. I ask unanimous consent that they be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, this is to advise you that the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources will hold a business meeting on Tuesday, February 12, 2013, at 9:45 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of the business meeting is to approve the Committee's funding resolution for the 113th Congress, assign members to subcommittees, and approve changes to the Committee's rules and questionnaire for executive nominations. For further information, please contact Sam Fowler at (202) 224-7571.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce, with my colleague Lisa Murkowski, the Ranking Member on the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, and at the request of the Delegate from the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Island, CNMI, Gregorio ``Kilili'' Sablan, legislation to amend Public Law 93-435, the Territorial Submerged Lands Act. This legislation would convey to the CNMI the same rights to offshore waters and submerged lands that were conveyed to the territories of Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and American Samoa nearly 40 years ago. This bill is non-controversial. In 2005, it was first introduced by then-Chairman of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Pete Domenici. A companion measure was introduced in the House of Representatives by then-Congressman Jeff Flake. In the 111th Congress, this bill passed the House as H.R. 934 on a 416-0 vote, and it was reported by the Senate Committee. In the 112th Congress, it again passed the House unanimously, on a 297-0 vote, and a hearing was held in the Senate on its companion measure, S. 590. I sincerely hope that this will be the year this bill is signed into law and the people of the CNMI will begin to enjoy the economic benefits that will result from gaining ownership of the waters and submerged lands adjacent to their shores, just as those benefits are enjoyed by every other State and territory of the Nation. The CNMI faces huge economic challenges that began with the phase-out of World Trade Organization garment quotas in 2005 and resulted in the departure of garment manufacturing. Gaining ownership of the waters and submerged lands adjacent to the 14 islands of the CNMI would help to stimulate the CNMI's struggling economy by allowing the use and management of these areas for near-shore infrastructure development, the extraction of minerals, energy development, aquaculture and other activities. Currently, under Federal ownership, there are no such activities in these areas because the Federal Government has no history of such near-shore jurisdiction and there is no Federal agency with responsibility for their management. Congress granted the States ownership of the waters and submerged lands out to three miles under the Submerged Lands Act of 1953. In 1974, Congress granted ownership of these areas to the territories. However, the Covenant which established the political union between the U.S. and the CNMI in 1976 was ambiguous on this matter of seaward ownership. Eventually, in 2005, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the submerged lands and waters off the CNMI's coasts fell under Federal ownership. Importantly, the Court also recognized that Congress had the power to convey these waters and lands to the CNMI. That is what this legislation would do. The CNMI is the only territory or State that does not have ownership of its adjacent waters and lands out to at least 39les. I urge my colleagues to support prompt passage of this bill to correct this disparity and to assist the CNMI in meeting its economic challenges. I'm not aware of any policy objections to this bill's enactment. I refer those interested in additional information to Senate Report 111-197. Included in that report is a CBO estimate stating that enactment of H.R. 934, the bill on which the legislation being introduced today is based, would not affect direct spending or revenues. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a letter of support 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 the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Tuesday, February 12, 2013, at 10:00 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of this hearing is to explore opportunities and challenges associated with America's natural gas resources. 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 Todd Wooten at (202) 224-4971 or Lauren Goldschmidt at (202) 224-5488.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, given the events of yesterday, this is the last opportunity for the next 5 years for the Congress to exercise a modest measure of real oversight over this intelligence surveillance law. Here is why. Colleagues, it is not real oversight when the Congress cannot get a yes or no answer to the question of whether an estimate currently exists as to whether law-abiding Americans have had their phone calls and e-mails swept up under the FISA law. That is the case today. Colleagues, it is not real oversight when the Congress cannot get a yes or no answer to the question of whether wholly domestic communications between law-abiding Americans in this country have been warrantlessly intercepted under the law. That is the case today. Colleagues, it is not real oversight when National Security Agency leadership states in a public forum that the Agency does not keep dossiers on millions of Americans and yet they will not give the Congress a yes or no answer as to whether the Agency collects any sort of data on millions of Americans. That is not the case today. What this amendment does is it gives us the opportunity to do real oversight--real oversight--by getting yes or no answers to questions that have been asked repeatedly by members of the Intelligence Committee. The amendment, in order to ensure that national security is protected at an important time in our country's history, gives the President of the United States unfettered discretion to redact any information he believes is necessary in order to protect the country's national security. The amendment does not require any agency to do new work. We have heard cited repeatedly it would be impossible to do an estimate on projections that have been discussed in the past. So we have changed course and we have said all we are seeking is a yes or no answer to the question of whether an estimate has actually been done. This is an important time for American security. It will always be an important time for American security. It is also an important time for American liberty, and this amendment ensures we can strike the appropriate balance between protecting our country's well-being and also protecting the individual liberties we all cherish. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I say this with the greatest respect to the distinguished chair of the committee--with whom I have worked cooperatively on so many issues--that when she said this amendment seeks to publish names, I would just like to say that is simply and factually incorrect. In no way, shape or form does this amendment seek to publish names, and I wish to tell colleagues that if anyone in connection with this program were to seek to publish names, I would vigorously oppose that effort. I simply just want to make sure the Record reflects that. We have heard by the opponents of this amendment that the intelligence community has already provided the Congress with lots of information about the FISA Amendments Act. However, the reality is a lot more complicated than that. Much of that information is in highly classified documents that are difficult for most Members to review, and the reality is most Members literally have no staff who are cleared to read the documents which have been cited. So the fact is most Members of Congress don't have staff to help them deal with these complicated issues so they are--in many particulars--in the dark about the program, and certainly the 300 million-plus Americans who expect us to strike that balance between security and liberty are also in the dark. I have already noted that the amendment gives the executive branch unfettered authority to make redactions, and I just want to make sure every Senator hears the exact language because I think this is as broad a redaction proposal as I have seen in my service on the committee. The redaction proposal states: If the President believes that public disclosure of the report required by this section could cause significant harm to national security, the President may redact such information from the report made available to the public. I hope colleagues who have asked about whether this would endanger our country and have heard on the floor of the Senate that somehow this amendment would seek to name names--particularly at a dangerous time-- will see, No. 1, that is not the case; and No. 2, that the President, as outlined on page 6, has full and unfettered discretion to redact the report as he sees fit. I also want to respond to this point that there would be no time for this to be considered by the other body if we add this modest measure of oversight. As I understand from the news reporting this morning, the other body will be meeting on Sunday, so they will be here this weekend. The other body is perfectly capable of passing an amended bill, getting it to the President by the end of the month. The distinguished vice chair and I both served in the other body. We know that when they are here--particularly on something that just involves a report--it would be very easy for the other body to pass this and send it to the President. In fact, the House passed the extension a few months ago with over 300 votes. So passing it Sunday when the other body is in session seems to not exactly be a difficult and arduous task. What it comes down to is what we define robust congressional oversight in a program such as this to be. Again, I respectfully say that without basic information as to whether an estimate even exists-- in response to colleagues--this is not talking about anybody going out and doing a lot of work. This is a question of either responding affirmatively or negatively to the question Senator Udall and I have been asking lo these several years: Does an estimate exist as to whether or not law-abiding Americans have had their communications swept up under this law? There is a reason to be concerned about this because Senator Udall and I worked very hard to get at least a little bit of information on this, and we have been able to declassify that there has been a fourth amendment violation in the past. I believe that without the information Senator Udall and I have sought that is behind this amendment--those who say there ought to be robust congressional oversight of this program ought to reflect on the fact that without this information which is so essential to do our work, oversight is not robust, it is toothless--it is toothless--if we cannot get an answer to the question as to whether an estimate exists for how many Americans have had their communications swept up. So I close with this: This is, as the distinguished chair of the committee said earlier, a critically important time for American security. Those of us who serve on the committee--and the distinguished Presiding Officer is part of these briefings--go into the room, and the doors are locked, and we certainly get significant information about the threats and the well-being of this country. So it is an important time for American security. It is also an important time for American liberty. To paraphrase Ben Franklin, as I did yesterday, those who give up their liberty in order to have security really don't deserve either. The two are not mutually exclusive. We can do both. That is what the constitutional teeter-totter has always been about--security and well- being of our country on the one hand and protecting our liberties on the other. What Senator Udall and I contend this morning is that without access to information about critical questions such as whether an estimate even exists as to how many law-abiding Americans have had their communications swept up under FISA, we can't answer the question as to whether the constitutional teeter-totter is in balance. So I hope my colleagues will vote for this amendment given the events of yesterday. I say to my colleagues that this will be the last opportunity--the last opportunity for 5 years--to exercise some modest measure of real oversight over this program. I hope my colleagues on a bipartisan basis will support this amendment. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. WYDEN. I thank my colleague from Colorado. He has been a wonderful partner in this effort to strike a balance between security and liberty. I look forward to working with him in the days ahead. Mr. President, how much time remains on each side?

Mr. WYDEN. I ask unanimous consent to call up my amendment which is at the desk.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, just to respond to the points made by the distinguished chair of the committee--and, by the way, I think the chair's reference to being willing in the next intelligence authorization bill to work with those of us--and Senator Merkley has made good points this afternoon to try to include language in the next intelligence authorization bill to deal with secret law--I think that would be very constructive. I appreciate the chair making that suggestion. Colleagues may know that under the leadership of the chair of the committee and the distinguished Senator from Georgia, the vice chair of the committee, Mr. Chambliss, we were able, late last week, to work out the disagreements with respect to the intelligence authorization bill this year. I wish to thank the chair for those efforts. I think we have a good bill. I think all of us are against leaks. That is what was at issue. I think we have now dealt with the issue in a fashion so as to protect the first amendment and the public's right to know, and I appreciate the chair working with this Senator on it. I think we have a good intelligence authorization bill now for this year. I think the chair's suggestion that we look at dealing with this issue of secret law--in addition, I hope, to adopting the Merkley amendment--that we deal with it in the next intelligence authorization bill is constructive. I do want to respond to one point on the merits with respect to comments made by the distinguished chair on this issue. The distinguished chair of the committee essentially said the law is public because the text of the statute is public. That is true. That is not in dispute. It is true that the text of the law is public. But the secret interpretations of that law and the fourth amendment from the FISA Court are not public. The administration pledged 3 years ago to do something about that. They pledged it in writing in various kinds of communications, and that still has not been done. That is why this is an important issue with respect to transparency and accountability. The distinguished chair of the committee is absolutely correct that the law is public. The text of the law is public. Nobody disputes that. But the secret interpretations of the law and the fourth amendment--the interpretations of the FISA Court are not public, and we have received pledges now for years that this would change. I remember--perhaps before the distinguished chair of the committee was in the Chamber--talking about how Senator Rockefeller and I got a letter indicating that this was going to be changed and that we were very hopeful we were going to again get more information with respect to legal interpretations, matters that ought to be public that do not threaten sources and methods and operations. We still have not gotten that. That is the reason why Senator Merkley's work is so important. I see my friend and colleague. I say to Senator Merkley, the distinguished chair of the committee has made the point--I think while the Senator had to be out of the Chamber--that the law is public because the text of it is public. But what the Senator has so eloquently described as being our concern is that the opinions of the FISA Court--their opinions and views about the fourth amendment--are what has been secret, and the administration has said for years now they would do something about it. So the Senator's amendment seeks to give this the strongest possible push. I think that is why the Senator's amendment is so important. The Senator is obviously making a lot of headway because the distinguished chair of the committee has also said this issue of secret law is something that can be addressed as well in the intelligence authorization bill. If we can adopt the Senator's amendment and then move on to the intelligence authorization bill, that will be a very constructive way to proceed, very much in the public interest. The Senator is obviously making headway.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I am going to be very brief in terms of responding to Senator Feinstein, the distinguished chair. First of all, there is no question the chair of the committee is correct that this is a dangerous time. That is specifically why, at page 6 of my amendment on the report, I include a redaction provision. If the President believes that public disclosure of information in the report required by the subsection could cause significant harm to national security, the President may redact such information from the report made available to the public. The bottom line: If the President believes any information that is made public would jeopardize our country at a dangerous time, the President is given full discretion with respect to redaction. Point No. 2. The chair of the committee is absolutely right; this is an important time for national security. It is also an important time for American liberties. We know the people of this country want to strike a balance between protecting our security and protecting our liberties. So under the reporting amendment all we require is, first, an estimate, just the question of an estimate and whether it has been done by any entity with respect to collecting this information--no new work, just a response to the question of whether an estimate has been done. Second, we request information on whether any wholly domestic communications have been collected under section 702, and then we ask whether there have been any backdoor searches under the legislation. Finally, we want a response with respect to what the Director of National Security meant when he said: ``The story that we have millions or hundreds of millions of dossiers on people is absolutely false.'' That is what we are talking about. I think, without that information, oversight in the intelligence field will essentially be toothless. This interrupts no operations in the intelligence field. It does not jeopardize sources and methods. It is, in my view, the fundamentals of doing real oversight. I thank my colleague from Kentucky for giving me this time, and I close by saying: No disagreement with the distinguished chair in the fact that there are real threats to this country's well-being and security, and that is why the President is given complete discretion in order to redact any information that would be made public. I yield the floor, and I thank the Senator from Kentucky for the time.