Ron Wyden

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, the Senate is being asked today to approve the intelligence authorization bill for 2013 by unanimous consent. I believe that significant changes need to be made to this bill before it is passed, so I object to this unanimous consent request. When the Senate Intelligence Committee approved this bill in July, I was the only member of the committee to vote against it, and I would like to take a few minutes to explain my concerns, so that my colleagues who are not on that committee can get a better sense of what this debate is about. This bill contains a number of worthwhile provisions, and I wish that I had been able to support it. Unfortunately, it also contains several provisions that I find very troubling, all of them located in Title V of the bill. These provisions are all intended to reduce unauthorized disclosures of classified information, but I am concerned that they will lead to less-informed public debate about national security issues, and also undermine the due process rights of intelligence agency employees, without actually enhancing national security. I agree with my colleagues that unauthorized disclosures of national security information, which are also known as ``leaks,'' can be a serious problem. Unauthorized disclosures of sensitive information can jeopardize legitimate military and intelligence operations, and even put lives at risk. So I think it can be entirely appropriate for Congress to look for ways to help the executive branch protect information that intelligence agencies want to keep secret, as long as Congress is careful not to do more harm than good. I myself spent 4 years working on legislation to increase the criminal penalty for people who are convicted of deliberately exposing covert agents, and I am proud to say that with help from a number of my Republican and Democratic colleagues, this legislation was finally signed into law in 2010. So I am all for Congress recognizing that leaks can be a serious problem, and for doing things to show the men and women of the U.S. intelligence community that we recognize the seriousness of this issue. The problem, though, is that Congress can't actually legislate this problem away, and attempts to do so can have serious negative consequences. One of the best analyses I have seen of the problem of unauthorized disclosures was a report published last year by the National Intelligence University. The report observed that this problem has been around for several decades, and noted specifically that ``The relative consistency in the number of unauthorized disclosures over the past 30 years demonstrates their persistent nature, independent of which political party controls the White House or Congress.'' This report, like a number of previous reports on the subject, also suggested that because it is very difficult to identify government employees responsible for disclosing classified information to the media, unauthorized disclosures are not a problem that can be solved with legislation. Again, this doesn't mean that Congress shouldn't try to find ways to help the executive branch when it can. But it does mean that Congress and the public should be generally skeptical of anti-leaks bills, and remember that not everything that is done in the name of stopping leaks is necessarily wise policy. In particular, I think Congress should be extremely skeptical of any anti-leaks bills that threaten to encroach upon the freedom of the press, or that would reduce access to information that the public has a right to know. As most of my colleagues are aware, my father was a journalist who reported on national security issues. Among other things, he wrote what many consider to be the definitive account of the Bay of Pigs invasion, as well as an authoritative account of how the U.S. came to build and use the first atomic bomb. Accounts like these are vital to the public's understanding of national security issues. Without transparent and informed public debate on foreign policy and national security topics, American voters would be ill-equipped to elect the policymakers who make important decisions in these areas. Congress, too, would be much less effective in its oversight if Members did not have access to informed press accounts on foreign policy and national security topics. And while many Members of Congress don't like to admit it, members often rely on the press to inform them about problems that congressional overseers have not discovered on their own. I have been on the Senate Intelligence Committee for 12 years now, and I can recall numerous specific instances where I found out about serious government wrongdoing--such as the NSA's warrantless wiretapping program, or the CIA's coercive interrogation program--only as a result of disclosures by the press. With all of that in mind, I am particularly concerned about sections 505 and 506 of this bill, both of which would limit the flow of unclassified information to the press and to the public. Section 505 would prohibit any government employee with a Top Secret, compartmented security clearance from, and I quote, ``entering into any contract or other binding agreement'' with, quote, ``the media'' to provide ``analysis or commentary'' concerning intelligence activities for a full year after that employee leaves the government. This provision would clearly lead to less-informed public debate on national security issues. News organizations often rely on former government officials to help explain complex stories or events, and I think it is entirely appropriate for former officials to help educate the public in this way. I am also concerned that prohibiting individuals from providing commentary could be an unconstitutional encroachment on free speech. For example, if a retired CIA Director wishes to publish an op-ed commenting on a public policy debate, I see no reason to try to ban him from doing so, even if he has been retired less than a year. I understand my colleagues' desire to prohibit unauthorized disclosures by retired officials, but these officials are already legally bound not to disclose classified information that they learned while in government service. And I would also note that this bill does not define who is and who isn't a member of the media, and that this ambiguity could present a variety of problems. When this bill was being considered in committee, I suggested that we get feedback from outside groups before we voted on it, so that we could address problems like this, and I hope that the committee will take that step in the future. Section 506 would also lead to a less-informed debate on national security issues, by prohibiting nearly all intelligence agency employees from providing briefings to the press, unless those employees give their names and provide the briefing on the record. The bill makes an exception for agency directors and deputy directors, and their public affairs offices, but no one else. It seems to me that authorized, unclassified background briefings from intelligence agency analysts and experts are a useful way to help inform the press and the public about a wide variety of issues, and there will often be good reasons to withhold the full names of the experts giving these briefings. I haven't seen any evidence that prohibiting the intelligence agencies from providing these briefings would benefit national security in any way, so I see no reason to limit the flow of information in this manner. The third provision that I am most concerned about is section 511, which would require the Director of National Intelligence to establish an administrative process under which he and the heads of the various intelligence agencies would have the authority to take away pension benefits from an intelligence agency employee, or a former employee, if the DNI or the agency head determines that the employee has knowingly violated his or her nondisclosure agreement and disclosed classified information. I am concerned that the Director of National Intelligence himself has said that this provision would not be a significant deterrent to leaks, and that it would neither help protect sensitive national security information nor make it easier to identify and punish actual leakers. Beyond these concerns about the provision's effectiveness, I am also concerned that giving intelligence agency heads broad new authority to take away the pensions of individuals who haven't been formally convicted of any wrongdoing could pose serious problems for the due process rights of intelligence professionals, particularly when the agency heads themselves haven't told Congress how they would interpret and implement this authority. As many of my colleagues will guess, I'm especially concerned about the rights of whistleblowers who report waste, fraud and abuse to Congress or Inspectors General. I outlined these due process concerns in more detail in the committee report that accompanied this bill, so I won't restate them all here. I will note, though, that I am particularly confused by the fact that section 511 creates a special avenue of punishment that only applies to accused leakers who have worked for an intelligence agency at some point in their careers. There are literally thousands of employees at the Departments of Defense, State and Justice, as well as the White House, who have access to sensitive national security information. I don't see a clear justification for singling out intelligence community employees with this provision, when there is no apparent evidence that these employees are responsible for a disproportionate number of leaks. And I am concerned that it will be harder to attract qualified individuals to work for intelligence agencies if Congress creates the perception that intelligence officers have fewer due process rights than other government employees. While I have a number of smaller concerns regarding the language of these anti-leaks provisions, the issues that I have just laid out represent my central concerns, and I hope that my colleagues now have a better sense of why I oppose this bill. I would add that my view seems to be widely shared outside of Congress, and that when USA Today ran an editorial criticizing these anti-leaks provisions, they couldn't find a single senator who was willing to publicly defend them. I know that the sponsors of this bill have worked hard on it, and I am still happy to sit down with them at any time to discuss my concerns in more detail, and help them make the major changes that I believe must be made before this authorization bill moves forward.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to sponsor two important pieces of legislation. My colleagues in this body are all aware of the challenges that American manufacturers struggle with in the global market. A particular challenge faces producers of renewable energy technology. Not only do these producers compete against decades of government subsidies provided to the oil and gas industry, these manufacturers are increasingly competing against China's unfair trade practices. As my colleagues know, the record is clear that China is cheating. China is illegally subsidizing their producers of solar and wind energy technology. China is enabling solar panels and wind energy property to be sold in the U.S. at below market value due to the government subsidies they are provided by China. The Department of Commerce is investigating these practices. The Department has already found specific practices employed by China that are against international trade rules. As a result the government will soon assign antidumping and countervailing duties on solar panels, for example, as they have been determined by the Department of Commerce to be unfairly traded. The first measure that I sponsored today is very simple. The Investment Tax Credit Integrity Act, S. 3610, would simply say for purposes of the tax credit that American buyers of solar panels and other qualifying renewable energy can claim, taxpayers cannot use the tax credit to offset the antidumping and countervailing duties that are assigned to this merchandise. As you know, the rate of these duties is designed to remedy the unfair trade that was exposed; it would be counterproductive to allow the Investment Tax Credit to undermine the purpose of these duties. The second measure that I filed today, S. 3611, is equally important. The Buy Fairly Traded Goods Act says that federal agencies should not, with taxpayer money, buy merchandise, like Chinese subsidized solar panels, that are subject to U.S. duties assigned to remedy the unfair trade practices. Taxpayer money should not be used to buy property that the Department of Commerce has determined is unfairly traded and which is shown to harm U.S. manufacturers. This measure is written so there may be limited exceptions in the event of a national security issue, and it is crafted to comply with America's international trade obligations. Importantly, this bill also instructs federal agencies to use their contracting power to ensure that developers who are producing renewable energy for use by the federal government do not buy property for that purpose that is subject to trade remedies. I am pleased that Senator Merkley has joined me in sponsoring these proposals. Mr. Merkley has a strong record for standing up for American businesses and the workers who are struggling during these difficult times due to the unscrupulous trade practices employed by the People's Republic of China.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Internet Radio Fairness Act. The goal of this proposal is to help one of America's oldest, most dynamic industries grow into the 21st Century. Thanks to new digital music technologies, the ways in which consumers can listen and buy music has been revolutionized. Internet technology is even changing the music industry itself. The Net is freeing artists from the shackles of major record label middlemen by enabling artists to broadcast and sell directly to consumers. In fact, right now bands on independent labels are dominating the music charts. Artists like Amanda Palmer are leaving the record labels behind by instead reaching for success by embracing Internet platforms like Kickstarter to get her music heard. I am a firm believer that further unleashing Internet technology will expand the music marketplace to better reward Internet innovation and musical artists. The Internet has changed our lives. It is reshaping how people communicate, collaborate and engage in commerce. The Internet empowers the powerless, it gives everyone a voice, and it advances human rights and the cause of freedom around the world. The growth and evolution of the Internet comes from good, innovative ideas and from policy environments that protect the Net from unfair and discriminatory taxes, regulation, and legal liability. Unfortunately, one area of the Internet ecosystem that is stifled is the digital services of broadcast music. In 1998 Federal laws were enacted to specifically thwart the development of Internet platforms that are commercially viable as broadcasters of digital music. Since then, concerns about online copyright infringement intensified, record sales plummeted, and many commercially successful musicians are struggling. Consumers and rightsholders are increasingly seeking innovative, new models that can better promote music and compensate artists. The Internet Radio Fairness Act intends to answer some of these calls. Under current law royalty rates prescribed for Internet Radio are established based on what a panel of special copyright judges determine to be the market rate for musical licenses. But there is no functioning market for these licenses and these judges are left with very little information to make reasonable conclusions. That is why Congress routinely intervenes to correct the work of these judges. The current method these judges use to establish royalty rates for Internet Radio has led to webcasters paying five times the amount of royalties--as a percentage of revenue--as other digital music broadcasters, like satellite and cable. The long-established method that copyright judges use to determine royalty rates for satellite and cable providers enables a broader set of factors to be considered. The Internet Radio Fairness Act would end the discrimination against the Internet and Internet Radio in the digital marketplace. It would treat Internet Radio, for purposes of establishing royalty rates, in the same way that satellite and cable radio are treated. It would enable the copyright judges the ability to consider factors they have long been familiar with to establish royalty rates for Internet Radio in the same way they have long done for other broadcasters. Doing this can enable new Internet Radio startups to succeed and create jobs, foster competition, and the expansion of the music marketplace in part so that artists can obtain broader exposure and more compensation. I hope to work with you, with stakeholders, and with my Senate colleagues to discuss this legislation and additional ideas that are necessary to unleash the power of the Internet to foster a broader, more dynamic marketplace for digital music.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Internet Radio Fairness Act. The goal of this proposal is to help one of America's oldest, most dynamic industries grow into the 21st Century. Thanks to new digital music technologies, the ways in which consumers can listen and buy music has been revolutionized. Internet technology is even changing the music industry itself. The Net is freeing artists from the shackles of major record label middlemen by enabling artists to broadcast and sell directly to consumers. In fact, right now bands on independent labels are dominating the music charts. Artists like Amanda Palmer are leaving the record labels behind by instead reaching for success by embracing Internet platforms like Kickstarter to get her music heard. I am a firm believer that further unleashing Internet technology will expand the music marketplace to better reward Internet innovation and musical artists. The Internet has changed our lives. It is reshaping how people communicate, collaborate and engage in commerce. The Internet empowers the powerless, it gives everyone a voice, and it advances human rights and the cause of freedom around the world. The growth and evolution of the Internet comes from good, innovative ideas and from policy environments that protect the Net from unfair and discriminatory taxes, regulation, and legal liability. Unfortunately, one area of the Internet ecosystem that is stifled is the digital services of broadcast music. In 1998 Federal laws were enacted to specifically thwart the development of Internet platforms that are commercially viable as broadcasters of digital music. Since then, concerns about online copyright infringement intensified, record sales plummeted, and many commercially successful musicians are struggling. Consumers and rightsholders are increasingly seeking innovative, new models that can better promote music and compensate artists. The Internet Radio Fairness Act intends to answer some of these calls. Under current law royalty rates prescribed for Internet Radio are established based on what a panel of special copyright judges determine to be the market rate for musical licenses. But there is no functioning market for these licenses and these judges are left with very little information to make reasonable conclusions. That is why Congress routinely intervenes to correct the work of these judges. The current method these judges use to establish royalty rates for Internet Radio has led to webcasters paying five times the amount of royalties--as a percentage of revenue--as other digital music broadcasters, like satellite and cable. The long-established method that copyright judges use to determine royalty rates for satellite and cable providers enables a broader set of factors to be considered. The Internet Radio Fairness Act would end the discrimination against the Internet and Internet Radio in the digital marketplace. It would treat Internet Radio, for purposes of establishing royalty rates, in the same way that satellite and cable radio are treated. It would enable the copyright judges the ability to consider factors they have long been familiar with to establish royalty rates for Internet Radio in the same way they have long done for other broadcasters. Doing this can enable new Internet Radio startups to succeed and create jobs, foster competition, and the expansion of the music marketplace in part so that artists can obtain broader exposure and more compensation. I hope to work with you, with stakeholders, and with my Senate colleagues to discuss this legislation and additional ideas that are necessary to unleash the power of the Internet to foster a broader, more dynamic marketplace for digital music.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to sponsor two important pieces of legislation. My colleagues in this body are all aware of the challenges that American manufacturers struggle with in the global market. A particular challenge faces producers of renewable energy technology. Not only do these producers compete against decades of government subsidies provided to the oil and gas industry, these manufacturers are increasingly competing against China's unfair trade practices. As my colleagues know, the record is clear that China is cheating. China is illegally subsidizing their producers of solar and wind energy technology. China is enabling solar panels and wind energy property to be sold in the U.S. at below market value due to the government subsidies they are provided by China. The Department of Commerce is investigating these practices. The Department has already found specific practices employed by China that are against international trade rules. As a result the government will soon assign antidumping and countervailing duties on solar panels, for example, as they have been determined by the Department of Commerce to be unfairly traded. The first measure that I sponsored today is very simple. The Investment Tax Credit Integrity Act, S. 3610, would simply say for purposes of the tax credit that American buyers of solar panels and other qualifying renewable energy can claim, taxpayers cannot use the tax credit to offset the antidumping and countervailing duties that are assigned to this merchandise. As you know, the rate of these duties is designed to remedy the unfair trade that was exposed; it would be counterproductive to allow the Investment Tax Credit to undermine the purpose of these duties. The second measure that I filed today, S. 3611, is equally important. The Buy Fairly Traded Goods Act says that federal agencies should not, with taxpayer money, buy merchandise, like Chinese subsidized solar panels, that are subject to U.S. duties assigned to remedy the unfair trade practices. Taxpayer money should not be used to buy property that the Department of Commerce has determined is unfairly traded and which is shown to harm U.S. manufacturers. This measure is written so there may be limited exceptions in the event of a national security issue, and it is crafted to comply with America's international trade obligations. Importantly, this bill also instructs federal agencies to use their contracting power to ensure that developers who are producing renewable energy for use by the federal government do not buy property for that purpose that is subject to trade remedies. I am pleased that Senator Merkley has joined me in sponsoring these proposals. Mr. Merkley has a strong record for standing up for American businesses and the workers who are struggling during these difficult times due to the unscrupulous trade practices employed by the People's Republic of China.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today a part of the Pacific Northwest is coming to Washington, DC. Thanks to the immensely creative and dedicated work of artist Rick Bartow and his team, two wooden pole sculptures will be placed in the garden of the Smithsonian National Museum of the American Indian. Atop one pole sits a bear and the other pole a raven, representing the healer and the rascal, respectively. The Bear pole is 27 feet tall, and the Raven pole, 23 feet tall. The poles--collectively titled ``We Were Always Here''--will face the Washington Monument and overlook the National Mall. The artist behind this project, Rick Bartow, is a Native American of Wiyot and Yurok heritage who was born in Newport, OR. His previous work has been shown throughout the world, including his Cedar Mill Pole, which was displayed at the White House in 1997. When you hear Mr. Bartow discuss his art, his process, and the world around him, you realize that you are listening to one of the country's foremost artistic minds. That talent is clearly showcased in ``We Were Always Here.'' The level of detail, history, and meaning in each pole is truly amazing. The poles are based on Native beliefs, but the message and meaning behind them are universal. For example, Mr. Bartow explains that the repeated horizontal patterns on each pole, ``symbolize successive waves, generations following generations, an accumulation of wisdom and knowledge.'' This idea that we can learn from our ancestors and from history is critical to the progress of our Nation and is one that is beautifully captured through these sculpture poles. Thanks to the tireless efforts of Mr. Bartow and his team, folks visiting the Smithsonian National Museum of the American Indian or walking the National Mall will now be able to look upon these sculptures and gain an understanding of the important role the Native American community has in Oregon and throughout our country. It is important to note that it is not only Oregon that is represented in these poles, but rather the Pacific Northwest. The two trees from which they are carved--a 1200 and 500 year old cedar--are from our northern neighbors, Washington State, and artists from around the area contributed in the creation of these sculptures. This sense of community is a staple of the Pacific Northwest and one that is represented in ``We Were Always Here''. I want to commend Mr. Bartow and his team for their great work, and I encourage everyone to get out and experience ``We Were Always Here'' by visiting the American Indian Museum or The National Mall.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Fair Trade in Seafood Act. Right now, our country is proud to be a world leader in the fishing and seafood processing industries. We rank among the world's top five exporters of seafood, and its largest importer. However, the U.S. seafood industry faces many challenges on the global stage from unfair competition. The Congress should be doing everything it can to make sure we retain our status as global leader. That is why I am introducing the Fair Trade in Seafood Act. This bill will establish this issue as a Principal Negotiating Objective of the United States in the ongoing Trans-Pacific Partnership and World Trade Organization talks. Why is this bill important? According to the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization, 85 percent of the world's fisheries are fully exploited, overexploited, depleted, or recovering from depletion--the highest percentage since the Food and Agricultural Organization began keeping records. Many governments continue to provide significant subsidies that push their fleets to fish longer, more intensively, and farther away than otherwise would be possible. These destructive fisheries subsidies are estimated to be at least $16 billion annually, an amount equivalent to approximately 20 percent of the value of the world catch. The detrimental effects of these illegal subsidies are so significant that eliminating them is the single greatest action that can be taken to protect the world's oceans. In contrast to these nefarious actors, the U.S. does not just talk about the importance of sustainable fishing practices and marine conservation. We are practicing what we preach. That means enforcing regulations and changing old, counterproductive, destructive habits. Our seafood industry is stronger because of it. At the same time, our market is open. In my view, this is the way every country ought to run its seafood industry. Our foreign trading partners, as I mentioned, often support practices that can cause long-term harm to marine habitat. In addition, our trading partners put up trade barriers that prevent sustainably caught U.S. seafood from reaching foreign consumers. These are practices that skew the playing field in a competitive marketplace. They skew the playing field against American fishers and give foreign competitors a huge advantage in an industry that depends on global trade. Forty percent of global fishery products are traded internationally, and seafood is more globally sourced than coffee, rice, and tea combined. These harmful foreign trade barriers and practices that encourage overfishing are top priorities that need to be addressed. These foreign trade barriers harm our country's ability to create good-paying jobs. Preserving the wealth of the world's marine environment is of paramount importance. The U.S. seafood industry represents a major portion of our economy, employing over 1.5 million workers in the commercial sector alone. The commercial seafood industry has a significant presence in over 23 States and is an industry and, in fact, a way of life, a way of life that binds communities and stitches together the regions of our country. The seafood sector employs more people than the mining or oil industries. It is also a foundation of our economy because, without fish, there are no jobs. Preserving the wealth of our oceans and rivers is an economic imperative as much as a moral one. That is why I urge my colleagues to cosponsor the Fair Trade in Seafood Act. In short, this Act will codify an official trade negotiating objective of the United States with respect to government fisheries subsidies. More specifically, the negotiating objective will be to eliminate fisheries subsidies provided by governments that unfairly destroy markets to the detriment of the United States commercial fishing interests and that perpetuate unsustainable fishing practices. The bill aims to ensure that any commitments with respect to such subsidies are enforceable under appropriate trade laws. This negotiating objective will apply to any trade agreement that includes any negotiations relating to the elimination or reduction of government fisheries subsidies. 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 Fair Trade in Seafood Act. Right now, our country is proud to be a world leader in the fishing and seafood processing industries. We rank among the world's top five exporters of seafood, and its largest importer. However, the U.S. seafood industry faces many challenges on the global stage from unfair competition. The Congress should be doing everything it can to make sure we retain our status as global leader. That is why I am introducing the Fair Trade in Seafood Act. This bill will establish this issue as a Principal Negotiating Objective of the United States in the ongoing Trans-Pacific Partnership and World Trade Organization talks. Why is this bill important? According to the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization, 85 percent of the world's fisheries are fully exploited, overexploited, depleted, or recovering from depletion--the highest percentage since the Food and Agricultural Organization began keeping records. Many governments continue to provide significant subsidies that push their fleets to fish longer, more intensively, and farther away than otherwise would be possible. These destructive fisheries subsidies are estimated to be at least $16 billion annually, an amount equivalent to approximately 20 percent of the value of the world catch. The detrimental effects of these illegal subsidies are so significant that eliminating them is the single greatest action that can be taken to protect the world's oceans. In contrast to these nefarious actors, the U.S. does not just talk about the importance of sustainable fishing practices and marine conservation. We are practicing what we preach. That means enforcing regulations and changing old, counterproductive, destructive habits. Our seafood industry is stronger because of it. At the same time, our market is open. In my view, this is the way every country ought to run its seafood industry. Our foreign trading partners, as I mentioned, often support practices that can cause long-term harm to marine habitat. In addition, our trading partners put up trade barriers that prevent sustainably caught U.S. seafood from reaching foreign consumers. These are practices that skew the playing field in a competitive marketplace. They skew the playing field against American fishers and give foreign competitors a huge advantage in an industry that depends on global trade. Forty percent of global fishery products are traded internationally, and seafood is more globally sourced than coffee, rice, and tea combined. These harmful foreign trade barriers and practices that encourage overfishing are top priorities that need to be addressed. These foreign trade barriers harm our country's ability to create good-paying jobs. Preserving the wealth of the world's marine environment is of paramount importance. The U.S. seafood industry represents a major portion of our economy, employing over 1.5 million workers in the commercial sector alone. The commercial seafood industry has a significant presence in over 23 States and is an industry and, in fact, a way of life, a way of life that binds communities and stitches together the regions of our country. The seafood sector employs more people than the mining or oil industries. It is also a foundation of our economy because, without fish, there are no jobs. Preserving the wealth of our oceans and rivers is an economic imperative as much as a moral one. That is why I urge my colleagues to cosponsor the Fair Trade in Seafood Act. In short, this Act will codify an official trade negotiating objective of the United States with respect to government fisheries subsidies. More specifically, the negotiating objective will be to eliminate fisheries subsidies provided by governments that unfairly destroy markets to the detriment of the United States commercial fishing interests and that perpetuate unsustainable fishing practices. The bill aims to ensure that any commitments with respect to such subsidies are enforceable under appropriate trade laws. This negotiating objective will apply to any trade agreement that includes any negotiations relating to the elimination or reduction of government fisheries subsidies. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, would the Senator yield for a question.

Mr. WYDEN. I think the Senator from Washington has made an extraordinary presentation in terms of outlining the facts of the abuse women face. Having done a series of forums around my home State--as my colleague knows, in our part of the country in Washington and in Oregon where there are many small communities of 10,000, 15,000 people, it is my experience--and I would be interested in getting the assessment of our colleague since she has been a leader on this--that without the Violence Against Women Act, it is my understanding that women in rural areas who face the kind of brutal treatment my colleague described would literally have nowhere to turn, so that the Violence Against Women Act for women in rural areas in particular is sort of the last line of defense for them.

Mr. WYDEN. I am going to listen to the rest of my colleague's remarks, and I will have my own. But I just want to thank the Senator from Washington for her leadership. This is such an important issue. It is not about dollars and cents, and it is not about politics. It is about doing what is right for combating violence, and I commend my colleague.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I wish to follow on the very important remarks made by our colleague, Senator Murray. As a result of the debate we have had in Washington, DC, I knew there was a significant problem, but until we held these forums across our State--we essentially went into every corner of Oregon--it really didn't come home to me how serious a problem this is. I wish to highlight for a moment or two this point I got into with Senator Murray with respect to rural areas, some of the stories. For example, I was told about a woman in central Oregon who essentially, faced with a very abusive relationship, spent the evening trying to hide out in ditches in the community. She would just run from ditch to ditch. Of course, a person gets pretty banged up and bruised when they do something like that, but she hid out in ditches through the night in order to avoid her abuser. But then it came to morning time and she wanted to get out. She wanted to get to the Safety Net program, which is a wonderful shelter in her area. But the fact was the only way to get out was to ask for a ride from the one person who had a vehicle in the community, and that was the person who abused her in the first place. So, literally, in a rural community--and I heard this account just recently--she had nowhere to turn. That is why I characterize the Violence Against Women Act as--especially for rural women--the last line of defense between them and the abuser. In another community--I know my colleague, the Presiding Officer, will identify with this, and I enjoyed going to West Virginia and the like--in a rural community in the eastern part of our State, it was described to me that there was no transportation out of the community. There was no transportation at all. The woman involved was going to literally have to stay there and face continual abuse. The one vehicle in the community was a fishing shuttle. I am sure the Senator from West Virginia identifies with that. It is something we have in our rural communities--a vehicle that takes folks fishing. The owner of the fishing shuttle said: I am going to be the one to take this woman to safety. I don't need to be reimbursed. I don't need to have some kind of government program or something. I am going to do it because it is right. That is how that woman in a rural community escaped her abuser. She got out. She got free. She was able to shake out of the clutches of the abuser because the fellow who owned the fishing shuttle stuck up for her. But I think this is Senator Murray's point: I do not think we can accept that all across the country we are going to have fishing shuttles available in order to rescue women who are subject to this kind of abuse. I think that is pretty farfetched, and the good hearts of Oregonians came through in that particular situation, but we have to reenact this program. The fact is, Mr. President and colleagues, this has been the law of the land for more than a decade. There has not been a shred of partisanship in it. It is not about ideology. It is about protecting women from brutality. I had thought, frankly, we had gotten over some of the arguments against this legislation that had been trotted out in the past. For example, it was often said in the past: Well, maybe these abuse cases are not abuse. Maybe they are just kind of family matters. They are going to get settled when the family kind of calms down. Maybe somebody got upset about something, and then in a day or so everything is going to go back to normal. That is not the case. This is about repeated instances of violence, repeated instances of violence you cannot slough off as a family difference of opinion. It is a crime. It is brutal violence. That is why we need this legislation, and we need it reauthorized. I think it is also especially important, given some of the budget cuts we have seen that are particularly hitting small communities like a wrecking ball. For example, in Josephine County--a rural part of our State--they are in the position where, when a subpoena goes out, they essentially do not have the resources to follow it up. In other words, the subpoena is used to, in effect, set in motion the law enforcement process to bring the abuser to justice, and I was told by the key law enforcement officials in Josephine County--in a community forum I held in Medford, OR, for folks from the southwestern part of the State--that they literally do not have the resources to follow up on how to ensure that abuser is brought to justice. I would make a couple of additional points. I see colleagues on the floor waiting to speak. I also want to talk about the costs that are associated with this. You have two kinds of costs. First, you have direct health care costs that stem from the violence you see perpetrated against women, and then also you have costs in terms of lost productivity. At a time when we are getting hit very hard by unemployment--and we know we are in a productivity race with Asia and India and China and other countries--we cannot afford the costs, the health care costs of the violence against women that ends up having women land in hospital emergency rooms and the like, nor can we allow this lost productivity at a time when we are pushing so hard to create more good-paying jobs. The protection that is offered through the Violence Against Women Act saves my home State of Oregon now millions of dollars through its key provisions. Safety from domestic violence would save Oregon more than $35 million per year in direct health care costs. Our State loses approximately $9.3 million per year in lost productivity from paid work as a result of domestic violence. The fact is, the preventive services offered by the Violence Against Women Act saves money, as does the very important work that is done by victim services. The study of 278 victims in my home town of Portland who received domestic violence and housing assistance found that those services resulted in more than $610,000 in savings during the first 6 months. So there are savings in terms of assistance, whether it is housing or counseling. Emergency medical care utilization is reduced as a result of emergency services, safety net services being available. Whether it is one measure or another, from a financial standpoint, reauthorizing the violence against women legislation makes sense. But at the end of the day, while the financial savings are substantial, it seems to me the Violence Against Women Act is about restoring dignity to women who have been abused in our country. No woman in the United States should be subject to the kind of physical abuse I have documented in cases coming from Oregon and that Senator Murray has described this morning. They strip our people--women in this country--of their dignity and their confidence and their ability, after they shake free from their abuser, to get on and have the kind of productive life they want for themselves and their family. Ultimately, this is about dignity. It is about doing what is right. This legislation has been on the books for more than a decade. There is no reason--none whatever--that this legislation is not passed overwhelmingly on a bipartisan, bicameral basis. I am going to do everything I can here on the floor of the Senate talking with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to make sure this legislation is reauthorized. Because what I saw during these community forums in my home State, from small towns across Oregon, should not happen in my State, it should not happen anywhere, because it is not right, and the Senate can take action to stop it. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss military medical training, and specifically, the use of live animals in trauma training. Many Americans may be unaware that the Military still uses live pigs and goats in combat trauma training courses to train military personnel to treat battlefield injuries. This is an outdated and inefficient training method that does not fully prepare doctors and medics to treat wounded service members. For many years, medical simulation has not been able to provide a training experience superior to animal-based live tissue training, but the newest generation of simulators can do just that. These simulators are based on human anatomy and recreate the feeling, the sights, and the sounds of treating a wounded service member. In current military training, live pigs and goats are anesthetized while trainees perform critical procedures on them. In some cases, the animals are shot in the face or have limbs amputated while the trainees are instructed to keep them alive as long as possible. This is inhumane, but more importantly, it is like comparing apples and oranges--this does not teach service members how to treat a human soldier, only how to operate on a goat or pig. And while live tissue training has some value in getting trainees accustomed to the sight of blood, medical simulation can now do the same, and has become the new gold standard. In civilian medical training courses, which teach many of the same procedures as the military, simulators have almost universally replaced the use of live animals. The reason for this is simple; to learn how to treat human injuries, you must learn on human anatomy. Medical simulation can now replicate that anatomy while providing the emotional and psychological pressure of working on a living, wounded soldier. Let me say that I applaud the investments that the Department of Defense has made in the area of simulation. No one has invested more in simulation technology than the Military. But the problem that I see is that despite millions of dollars in investments, simulator technology is not being fully utilized. Speaking of costs, in addition to providing superior training and reducing animal suffering, a move away from live tissue training would save taxpayer dollars. Due to the many hidden costs of animal use, such as housing and feeding the animals, purchasing drugs for euthanasia and anesthesia, and keeping a veterinarian on staff, simulation can offer a better training experience at a lower cost. But at the end of the day this is about providing the best possible training for our troops, because in military medicine the difference between the best training and the next best can literally mean the difference between life and death. For these reasons I introduced today the Battlefield Excellence through Superior Training Practices, or BEST Practices Act. This legislation lays out a timeline for the Department of Defense to develop and fully implement innovative simulator technology in medical training, and to phase out live tissue training on animals in the process. I want to note that I designed this legislation with a specific waiver authority for the Secretary of Defense, so that if there is a specific procedure that can only be best taught with live tissue use, that option is not removed. But the BEST Practices Act is primarily designed to engage the Pentagon to embrace this technology, continue further development, and incorporate this technology in military training in all cases where simulators provide the best result. Just as we have seen with other technologies, the advancements in medical simulation are increasing at an exponential rate. The capabilities currently in place and under development are truly amazing. The BEST Practices Act capitalizes on these present and future capabilities, and uses them to save the lives of our service members.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss military medical training, and specifically, the use of live animals in trauma training. Many Americans may be unaware that the Military still uses live pigs and goats in combat trauma training courses to train military personnel to treat battlefield injuries. This is an outdated and inefficient training method that does not fully prepare doctors and medics to treat wounded service members. For many years, medical simulation has not been able to provide a training experience superior to animal-based live tissue training, but the newest generation of simulators can do just that. These simulators are based on human anatomy and recreate the feeling, the sights, and the sounds of treating a wounded service member. In current military training, live pigs and goats are anesthetized while trainees perform critical procedures on them. In some cases, the animals are shot in the face or have limbs amputated while the trainees are instructed to keep them alive as long as possible. This is inhumane, but more importantly, it is like comparing apples and oranges--this does not teach service members how to treat a human soldier, only how to operate on a goat or pig. And while live tissue training has some value in getting trainees accustomed to the sight of blood, medical simulation can now do the same, and has become the new gold standard. In civilian medical training courses, which teach many of the same procedures as the military, simulators have almost universally replaced the use of live animals. The reason for this is simple; to learn how to treat human injuries, you must learn on human anatomy. Medical simulation can now replicate that anatomy while providing the emotional and psychological pressure of working on a living, wounded soldier. Let me say that I applaud the investments that the Department of Defense has made in the area of simulation. No one has invested more in simulation technology than the Military. But the problem that I see is that despite millions of dollars in investments, simulator technology is not being fully utilized. Speaking of costs, in addition to providing superior training and reducing animal suffering, a move away from live tissue training would save taxpayer dollars. Due to the many hidden costs of animal use, such as housing and feeding the animals, purchasing drugs for euthanasia and anesthesia, and keeping a veterinarian on staff, simulation can offer a better training experience at a lower cost. But at the end of the day this is about providing the best possible training for our troops, because in military medicine the difference between the best training and the next best can literally mean the difference between life and death. For these reasons I introduced today the Battlefield Excellence through Superior Training Practices, or BEST Practices Act. This legislation lays out a timeline for the Department of Defense to develop and fully implement innovative simulator technology in medical training, and to phase out live tissue training on animals in the process. I want to note that I designed this legislation with a specific waiver authority for the Secretary of Defense, so that if there is a specific procedure that can only be best taught with live tissue use, that option is not removed. But the BEST Practices Act is primarily designed to engage the Pentagon to embrace this technology, continue further development, and incorporate this technology in military training in all cases where simulators provide the best result. Just as we have seen with other technologies, the advancements in medical simulation are increasing at an exponential rate. The capabilities currently in place and under development are truly amazing. The BEST Practices Act capitalizes on these present and future capabilities, and uses them to save the lives of our service members.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the critical need in today's health care workforce for additional training related to palliative care. Palliative care is an interdisciplinary model of care focused on relieving the pain, stress and other debilitating symptoms of serious illness, such as cancer, cardiac disease, respiratory disease, kidney failure, Alzheimer's, AIDS, ALS, and MS. Its goal is to relieve suffering and provide the best possible quality of life for patients and their families. Many people mistakenly believe that palliative care is only beneficial when a cure is not possible. Actually, palliative care is not dependent on a life-limiting prognosis and may actually help individuals recover by relieving symptoms--such as pain, anxiety or loss of appetite--while they are undergoing sometimes difficult medical treatments or procedures, such as surgery or chemotherapy. Palliative care is provided by a team of doctors, nurses, social workers, and other specialists who work with a patient's other health care providers to provide an extra layer of support, including assistance with difficult medical decision-making and coordination of care among specialists. Palliative care is appropriate for people of any age and at any stage in an illness, whether that illness is curable, chronic or life-threatening. There is a specific type of palliative care, called hospice, for people for whom a cure is no longer possible and who likely have 6 months or less to live. Hospice care can be provided at one's home, a hospice facility, a hospital or a nursing home. Hospice care is about giving patients control, dignity and comfort so they have the best possible quality of life during the time they have. Hospice care also provides support and grief therapy for loved ones whose struggles are often cast aside or forgotten during treatment. A growing evidence base has demonstrated that palliative care, including hospice, improves quality, controls cost and enhances patient and family satisfaction for the rapidly expanding population of individuals with serious or life-threatening illness. Palliative care may also prolong the lives of some seriously ill patients. Over the last 10 years, the number of hospital-based palliative care programs has more than doubled due to the increasing number of Americans living with serious, complex and chronic illnesses and the realities of the care responsibilities faced by their families. Studies suggest that in states with more hospital-based palliative care programs, patients are less likely to die in the hospital, are likely to spend fewer days in the ICU, have better pain management and higher satisfaction with their health care. As usual, Oregon is ahead of the curve and I am proud to say that in a 2011 report ranking states on their citizens' access to hospital- based palliative care programs, Oregon was among the seven states who earned an ``A'' rating, with 88 percent of Oregon hospitals offering palliative care. Unfortunately, many seriously ill patients and their families lack the access available to Oregonians. Palliative care is a relatively new medical specialty and more must be done to ensure an adequate, well- trained palliative care workforce is available to provide comprehensive symptom management, intensive communication and a level of care coordination that addresses the episodic and long-term nature of serious, chronic illness. I believe that, with Federal support, we can help address the workforce gap between those currently practicing in palliative care and hospice and the number of health care professionals required to care for this expanding patient population That is why today I am introducing the Palliative Care and Hospice Education and Training Act or PCHETA. This authorizing legislation focuses on three key areas to grow the palliative care and hospice workforce. Education centers to expand interdisciplinary training in palliative and hospice care. Training of physicians who plan to teach palliative medicine and fellowships to encourage re-training for mid-career physicians, and academic career awards and career incentive awards to support physicians and other health care providers who provide palliative and hospice care training. With this legislation, patients and families who are facing serious or life-threatening illness will have access to the high-quality palliative care and hospice services that can maximize their quality of life. I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort. 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 discuss the critical need in today's health care workforce for additional training related to palliative care. Palliative care is an interdisciplinary model of care focused on relieving the pain, stress and other debilitating symptoms of serious illness, such as cancer, cardiac disease, respiratory disease, kidney failure, Alzheimer's, AIDS, ALS, and MS. Its goal is to relieve suffering and provide the best possible quality of life for patients and their families. Many people mistakenly believe that palliative care is only beneficial when a cure is not possible. Actually, palliative care is not dependent on a life-limiting prognosis and may actually help individuals recover by relieving symptoms--such as pain, anxiety or loss of appetite--while they are undergoing sometimes difficult medical treatments or procedures, such as surgery or chemotherapy. Palliative care is provided by a team of doctors, nurses, social workers, and other specialists who work with a patient's other health care providers to provide an extra layer of support, including assistance with difficult medical decision-making and coordination of care among specialists. Palliative care is appropriate for people of any age and at any stage in an illness, whether that illness is curable, chronic or life-threatening. There is a specific type of palliative care, called hospice, for people for whom a cure is no longer possible and who likely have 6 months or less to live. Hospice care can be provided at one's home, a hospice facility, a hospital or a nursing home. Hospice care is about giving patients control, dignity and comfort so they have the best possible quality of life during the time they have. Hospice care also provides support and grief therapy for loved ones whose struggles are often cast aside or forgotten during treatment. A growing evidence base has demonstrated that palliative care, including hospice, improves quality, controls cost and enhances patient and family satisfaction for the rapidly expanding population of individuals with serious or life-threatening illness. Palliative care may also prolong the lives of some seriously ill patients. Over the last 10 years, the number of hospital-based palliative care programs has more than doubled due to the increasing number of Americans living with serious, complex and chronic illnesses and the realities of the care responsibilities faced by their families. Studies suggest that in states with more hospital-based palliative care programs, patients are less likely to die in the hospital, are likely to spend fewer days in the ICU, have better pain management and higher satisfaction with their health care. As usual, Oregon is ahead of the curve and I am proud to say that in a 2011 report ranking states on their citizens' access to hospital- based palliative care programs, Oregon was among the seven states who earned an ``A'' rating, with 88 percent of Oregon hospitals offering palliative care. Unfortunately, many seriously ill patients and their families lack the access available to Oregonians. Palliative care is a relatively new medical specialty and more must be done to ensure an adequate, well- trained palliative care workforce is available to provide comprehensive symptom management, intensive communication and a level of care coordination that addresses the episodic and long-term nature of serious, chronic illness. I believe that, with Federal support, we can help address the workforce gap between those currently practicing in palliative care and hospice and the number of health care professionals required to care for this expanding patient population That is why today I am introducing the Palliative Care and Hospice Education and Training Act or PCHETA. This authorizing legislation focuses on three key areas to grow the palliative care and hospice workforce. Education centers to expand interdisciplinary training in palliative and hospice care. Training of physicians who plan to teach palliative medicine and fellowships to encourage re-training for mid-career physicians, and academic career awards and career incentive awards to support physicians and other health care providers who provide palliative and hospice care training. With this legislation, patients and families who are facing serious or life-threatening illness will have access to the high-quality palliative care and hospice services that can maximize their quality of life. I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

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

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I am very pleased that the Senate today passed the Farm bill. This is bipartisan legislation that is critical to all Americans--from the farmers who grow our food, to the consumers who purchase that food, to kids who get school lunches, and to the neediest in our Nation who deserve access to adequate nutrition. I especially want to commend Senator Stabenow and Senator Roberts for their yeoman bipartisan work to craft this important legislation. As Senator Stabenow has so eloquently put it time and again, this bill is a jobs bill. One in every 12 American jobs is tied to agriculture and this legislation represents an opportunity to create more jobs. In my home State of Oregon, agriculture is now more than a $5 billion a year industry and it reflects a wide array of crops, mirroring the diversity in America's agriculture. As I like to say, Oregonians do a lot of thing well, but what we do best is grow things and add value to those things. This bill has a lot in it to help Oregonians do that even better and in turn create more opportunities to sell those products better locally, nationally and abroad. I was particularly pleased to have been successful in adding two amendments to the Farm bill. These are amendments to make it easier to provide healthier foods for children in schools and to help address the problem of hunger in our country. One of my amendments would for the first time test out direct farm- to-school approaches to provide healthier foods for children in our schools. It will do this through a competitive pilot program with at least five farm-to-school demonstration projects in all regions in the country. While there are currently some farm to school programs in place, it's a patchwork system and, according to the Agriculture Department's own Economic Research Service, ``data and analysis of farm to school programs are scare.'' This pilot program will fill in the information void about what works and what doesn't, and it will provide a way to improve and replace ineffective programs. What is more, under these demonstration projects, innovative States and school districts will truly be able source fresh, high-quality local produce for our schoolchildren to enjoy. No more having to purchase faraway food from a Federal warehouse hundreds of miles away when there is healthy food just down the road. Under my amendment, schools win. Farmers win. And most importantly, our children get to enjoy the delicious, local produce that they should be able to enjoy--every day--for breakfast, or for lunch, or for a snack. That is why the American Academy of Pediatrics the Nation's pediatricians supported my no cost farm-to-school amendment. With the adoption of this amendment, it will be easier for delicious pears, cherries, and other healthy produce, grown just a few miles down the road, to make it into our schools. Schools and school food authorities from all over the country with innovative ideas can now begin drawing up novel plans of action to purchase fresh, local produce for their kids. New ideas will come forth, and the existing farm-to-school infrastructure will improve as new and better distribution models begin to emerge. I am heartened that the farm-to-school movement has truly become national in scope, as more people recognize both the health and economic benefits that derive from these efforts. My amendment will make this movement not only bigger but better. I thank Senator Stabenow and her staff for working with me on this amendment and helping me get this passed. Fewer folks will be hungry thanks to the Senate's passage of my microloan for gleaners amendment. These gleaners are mostly volunteers who collect food from grocery stores, restaurants, and farms--food that would otherwise be wasted-- and distribute it to agencies or nonprofit organizations that feed it to the hungry. These good Samaritans who save food from being tossed into landfills or burned in incinerators will finally be able to access the capital they deserve to expand and improve their operations. At a time when food waste is the single largest category of waste in our local landfills--more than 34 million tons of food, even a portion of that wasted food could feed a lot of people. By redistributing food that would otherwise go to waste to the hungry--again, without spending extra taxpayer money--we can do more to ensure that this unwanted food is used to tackle hunger in America. Instead of burning this food in incinerators, gleaners can help more people in need burn this food as calories. This is just one more step in the right direction to help alleviate food insecurity in our country. I again thank Senator Stabenow and her staff for their assistance in getting this amendment passed. It will provide real help to a group of selfless folks that are trying to bring some commonsense solutions to the hunger crisis. As happy as I was to get the Farm Bill passed and get these amendments included, an opportunity to encourage healthier eating by recipients of SNAP benefits--what was previously known as food stamps-- was unfortunately not able to come up for a vote. This is disappointing. Not disappointing for me, but for the millions of SNAP beneficiaries, public health officials, and others who know we can do better to encourage healthier eating and increase consumption of healthy fruits and vegetables. The existing waiver authority for SNAP is extremely restrictive and has resulted in a number of innovative State proposals being denied. It makes no sense to continue to stifle innovation and progress when it comes to incentivizing beneficiaries to eat healthier. I will continue to push for ways to promote healthier eating through the SNAP program, given that it will improve public health, increase the consumption of healthy food, boost local farmers' incomes, and give taxpayers the confidence that their tax dollars are being spent on food that is really food. I was also very disappointed that my amendment to legalize industrial hemp was also not granted a vote. I firmly believe that American farmers should not be denied an opportunity to grow and sell a legitimate crop simply because it resembles an illegal one. I fought for an amendment that would have recognized industrial hemp as a legitimate crop, but since doing so requires amending the Controlled Substances Act it was considered non-germane to the current debate and could not be brought up for a vote. However, just my raising this issue has sparked a growing awareness of exactly how ridiculous the U.S.'s ban on industrial hemp is and I feel that important progress was made in advancing this dialogue. I am confident that if grassroots support continues to grow and Members of Congress continue to hear from voters, then commonsense hemp legislation can move through Congress in the near future. I plan to continue to keep fighting for this and hope to reintroduce this as a stand-alone bill. I also want to raise concerns with language that was passed in the bill that amended the Healthy Forests Restoration Act. It is my hope that this issue will still be addressed in conference. I understand Senator Bennet made remarks expressing that same desire. The language in the forestry title of the Farm bill amended an Act which I played a key role in helping pass originally in the Senate a decade ago. As part of efforts to pass that legislation, which streamlined National Environmental Policy Act requirements, as well as appeals and judicial review, a carefully balanced compromise was reached. Environmental protections and clear limitations for appropriate places for the use of that authority were enacted as part of that legislation. The language in the Farm Bill creates a sweeping new authority to use the Healthy Forest Restoration Act for areas potentially threatened with insect or disease infestations but fails to include any of the environmental protections or clear limitations in the original legislation. Additional, the way those areas that are threatened by insects and disease are defined is very broad. I worked very hard with several of my colleagues to try to reach a compromise. It is my hope that given a little more time, we will be able to reach a compromise before a final Farm Bill becomes law. I hope we will have a chance to perfect this language to address these concerns as the bill goes to conference. Lastly, I want to touch the labeling of genetically modified foods. I have always believed that consumers benefit from having more information about the food they consume, and that is why I supported an amendment offered by Senator Sanders regarding the labeling of such foods. However, I continue to believe that the most realistic way to improve consumer information about genetically modified foods is to take a national approach and I will continue to work towards that goal. That is why I cosponsored Senator Begich's legislation to ensure that genetically modified fish are labeled. In sum, I again want to reiterate my strong support for the Farm Bill passed in the Senate and my great pleasure at having successfully gotten two amendments into this bill. I raised several additional issues and it is my hope that there will be continued opportunities to address these issues going forward. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. I will only state this costs no additional money. Senator Stabenow supports it, and I yield to her.

Mr. WYDEN. I ask for a recorded vote.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, has all time expired?

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

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the country's pediatricians, is recommending to the Senate that this amendment be passed to encourage healthier foods for our kids. The Congressional Budget Office has stated that this amendment has no cost. This amendment would, for the first time, test out farm-to-school programs through a competitive pilot program with at least five farm- to-school demonstration projects so it would be possible to fill in the information void about what works and what doesn't. The Agriculture Department's own Economic Research Service reports that ``data and analysis of farm-to- school programs are scarce.'' Under this amendment, the schools win, the farmers win, and the taxpayers win. I hope we can accept it with a voice vote.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, again, I hope we can handle this amendment on a voice vote. This is an amendment that would help the gleaners all across the country, who, of course, are the volunteers across America who help get surplus food that would otherwise be wasted out to the hungry at senior centers and at various kinds of food kitchens and other critical hunger programs. Thirty-four million tons of food waste is generated each year. That could feed a lot of people. The gleaners are trying to make sure this perfectly good food goes on the plates of struggling Americans as opposed to millions of pounds of it going into landfills and incinerators. This amendment, again, costs no money. It simply makes----

Mr. WYDEN. I call up my farm-to-school amendment No. 2388.