Ron Wyden

Mr. WYDEN

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 amendment No. 2442.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I am going to take a few minutes to outline the amendments I plan to offer on the farm bill. In beginning, I particularly want to commend the chair of the committee, Senator Stabenow, and Senator Roberts. I think we all understand that if you want to tackle a big issue, an important issue, you have to find a way to come to something resembling common ground. This bill is especially important. This is a jobs bill at a time when our country needs good-paying jobs. It is an extraordinarily important health bill, particularly one with great implications for how America tackles the issue of obesity. It is an environmental bill because it has great implications for conservation. And, of course, it has extraordinary impact on rural communities--rural communities that are hurting right now. The amendments I am going to be offering on the farm bill address those major concerns, and those concerns are particularly important to my State. My State does a lot of things well, but what we do best is we grow things. We grow things, add value to them, and ship them somewhere. We grow lots and lots of things--hundreds of crops, wonderful fruit and vegetables. We want to have a chance to grow this part of our economy. It is a $5 billion economy for the State of Oregon, and one we want to strengthen in the days ahead. The first amendment I will be offering on the farm bill addresses the Farm to School Program. Schools all across the country purchase produce--pears, cherries, tomatoes, and lettuce--from Department of Agriculture warehouses. In some cases, the warehouses may be hundreds and hundreds of miles away. There are schools, however, that wish to source their fruits and vegetables locally. There are producers who wish to sell their goods to local schools. You don't have to be a fancy economist, but that sounds like a market to me. The Congress ought to enable this market, not make it more difficult for this market to function. I spent a lot of time in rural Oregon over the last few months. As I have previously indicated, Harry & David, a producer in my home State--and a lot of Senators have gotten their wonderful products over the years as holiday gifts--wants to sell their wonderful pears to the school down the street. In attempting to do so, Harry & David has been met with a real maze, a welter of odd Federal rules, that has prevented them from doing so. It should not be bureaucratic water torture for a local producer to sell to a nearby school. It is getting at that kind of bureaucracy and redtape that my Farm to School amendment seeks to address. As of now, Federal agriculture policy seems to be dishing out a diet of paperwork, process, and limited options, when we ought to be promoting innovation and getting away from this sort of one-size-fits-all approach. My Farm to School amendment would allow for at least five Farm to School projects across the country, where States like mine that are innovative, have established and proven Farm to School programs in place, would be able to source healthy, quality produce rather than buy it from one of these faraway Federal warehouses. Under this kind of approach, with this crucial program, the schools are going to win, our farmers are going to win, and our kids will be able to enjoy delicious local produce every day with this particular amendment. The second amendment I plan to offer also encourages healthier eating. This one deals with the SNAP program--the program formerly known as Food Stamps. As the occupant of the chair knows, this program represents a substantial amount of the funding for the farm bill--over $70 billion. There are 700,000 SNAP recipients in my home State of Oregon. For too many Oregonians, this program is the only thing that stands between them and hunger. I have said it on this floor before, and I want to say it again: I am not in favor of cutting these benefits; quite the contrary. I think Senator Gillibrand has an excellent amendment to ensure that that doesn't take place. I hope she will win support in the Senate for it. We should not have, in a country as rich and strong as ours, this many Americans going to bed at night hungry and trying to dig themselves out of the great recession at the same time. So I am not in favor of cutting SNAP benefits, but I am in favor of incentivizing this program to make it possible for those of modest incomes to get healthier, more nutritious foods, especially in light of the growing obesity epidemic our country faces. What troubles me is that, in one sense, the Food Stamp Program, the SNAP program, is something of a conveyor belt for calories. It essentially says all of the various food products are equal. At a time when we see such extraordinary rates of obesity, particularly for low- income children and low-income women, I only hope we can look at ways to create incentives for healthier eating. I am not in favor of setting up some kind of Federal policy that starts dictating from Washington, DC, what folks who are using the SNAP program can eat. I am not interested in some kind of national nanny program, or something that says you can't eat this or that. What I am proposing is that here in the Senate, we look at ways, particularly when you are talking about $70 billion of Federal nutrition spending, to at least promote healthier eating wherever possible, and the increased consumption of healthy fruits and vegetables. Studies by the Centers for Disease Control show that low-income women and children--those most likely to receive SNAP benefits--are more likely to be obese than higher income women and children. What I am proposing with this amendment is giving the States some flexibility to try out ways to make SNAP benefits a launch pad for better nutrition, rather than, as I characterized it earlier, a conveyor belt for calories. What I wish--and I know the Chair hails from a State with a substantial amount of agriculture--is to see farmers, retailers, health specialists, and those who rely on the SNAP program, to get together and find a consensus--some common ground--on a way to wring more nutritional value out of those SNAP benefits. In Oregon, we have tried this idea out. Those in the retail community, farmers and anti-hunger groups got together, and this group thinks they can do more to improve nutritional outcomes under this very large program. The amendment makes clear that you could not get a waiver to reduce eligibility, or reduce the amount of benefits that someone on the SNAP program receives. But you could, for example, try various approaches to promote nutritional eating. A State could encourage SNAP recipients to purchase more fruits and vegetables by partnering with grocery stores or other food sellers to provide coupons to enable SNAP recipients to purchase extra or discounted fruits and vegetables. There are now programs that allow SNAP benefits to be exchanged at farmers markets for coupons that produce $2 worth of produce for $1 of SNAP benefits. The cost of the extra produce is paid for using non-federal funds. A State waiver could enable this type of program, for example, to be expanded beyond farmers markets. There is a host of innovative proposals, in my view, that could improve public health and increase the consumption of healthy food. I hope as we go forward toward the conclusion of this legislation in the Senate, we can look at ways to accept the proposition that not all of the wisdom resides in Washington, DC, particularly when we are seeing these skyrocketing rates of obesity, tragically with special implications for low-income women and children. I think there are better ways to proceed. This amendment empowers States to have that opportunity. The third amendment I am going to offer, I have not spoken about on the floor to date, and I wish to take just a minute to describe what this amendment deals with. It is an amendment I plan to offer that addresses the issue of industrial hemp farming. It is cosponsored by Senator Rand Paul and is identical to legislation in the House, which has 33 bipartisan cosponsors. This is, in my view, a textbook example of a regulation that flunks the commonsense test. There is government regulation on the books that prevents America's farmers from growing industrial hemp. What is worse, this regulation is hurting job creation in rural America and increasing our trade deficit. When my colleagues get more information about this outlandish, outrageous restriction on free enterprise, I think most of them are going to agree the restriction on industrial hemp is the poster child for dumb regulations. The only thing standing in the way of taking advantage of this profitable crop is a lingering misunderstanding about its use. The amendment I have filed on this issue will end a ridiculous regulation once and for all. Right now, the United States is importing over ten-million of dollars of hemp products to use in paper products, construction materials, textiles, and a variety of other goods. 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 can 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're making in U.S. markets, at the expense of our farmers. It was a very good bet. U.S. imports of hemp products have consistently grown over the past decade, increasing by 300 percent in 10 years. From 2009 to 2010, they grew 35 percent. The number of acres in Canada devoted to growing industrial hemp nearly doubled from 2011 to 2012. I know there are going to be Members of Congress, and others who are listening to this, who are going to say all this talk about hemp is basically talk about marijuana. The fact is, while they come from the same species of plant, there are major differences between them. They have different harvest times, they're different heights, and the cultivation techniques are markedly different. And when we recognize those differences, we'll be able to focus on the benefits from producing domestically the hemp we already use. Under this amendment, the production of hemp would still be regulated, but it would be done by the States through permitting programs, not the Federal Government. Nine States have already put legislation in place to provide for a permitting system that enforces the prohibition on marijuana and ensures that industrial hemp maintains a very low THC level--under 0.3 percent. The lowest-grade marijuana typically has 5 percent THC content. The bottom line is no one is going to get high on industrial hemp. Hemp has been a profitable commodity in a number of 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, our country is the only industrialized nation that prohibits farmers from growing hemp. Oregon is home to some of the major manufacturers of hemp products, including Living Harvest, one of the largest hemp food producers in our 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 other States. One company in North Carolina has been 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 ours at developing, perfecting, and expanding markets for our products. As the market grows, it ought to be domestically produced hemp that supplies that growth. I would like to close on this topic with a couple statements by one of the leading newspapers in my State, The Bulletin. I think it would be fair to say The Bulletin would not cite itself as one of the first places one ought to look for left-wing thinking, and here is what they had to say with respect to my amendment, which they encouraged support for: . . . 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's like surrendering the competitive edge to China and Canada, where it can be grown legally. The editorial then goes on to say: Legalizing industrial hemp does not have to be a slippery slope towards legalizing marijuana. It can be a step toward removing regulatory burdens limiting Oregon farmers from competing in the world market. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a copy of the editorial from The Bulletin.

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for up to 20 minutes.

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, if this farm bill is about empowering farmers and increasing rural jobs, let's give them the tools they need to get the job done. Let's boost revenue for farmers and reduce the overhead costs for the businesses around the country that use this product. And 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 have described, I will be urging my colleagues to support this amendment so the law can be changed and farmers are not prevented from growing a profitable crop in the future. Even though my amendment is about growing a crop and should be clearly relevant to the farm bill, it may be blocked from getting a vote because of the Senate rules on what amendments are allowed to be offered once cloture is invoked on the bill. If I get the opportunity, I am going to bring this amendment up through the regular order. But if cloture is invoked and my amendment is not allowed, I want colleagues to know I will be back at this again until there are smarter regulations in place for industrial hemp. In closing, let me say I don't think we can overstate the importance of the best possible farm bill. Senator Stabenow and Senator Roberts have, in my view, done yeomen's work in trying to build a bipartisan approach. The question now is can we use the amendment process to improve on the kind of bipartisan effort they brought to the floor. Each of the areas I have described this afternoon--improving the Farm to School program, wringing more value and better nutritional outcomes from the SNAP program, and helping a promising hemp industry--give us a chance to attain the objectives of what I have described as the best possible farm bill, and we can do this all without spending one single dime of additional taxpayer money--not a dime of additional taxpayer money. It is my hope we can take the good work that has already been done by Senators Stabenow and Roberts and build on that. I hope the Senate will support the three amendments I have described this afternoon. With that, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Reserving the right to object----

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I have served on the Intelligence Committee for 11 years now, and I have seen during that time plenty of leaks. I have tried with every bit of my energy to demonstrate how serious an issue this leaking matter is. In fact, I teamed up with Senator Bond-- our colleagues remember Senator Bond, of course--and I sponsored legislation to double--double--the criminal penalty for those who leak, for those who expose covert agents. So I don't take a back seat to anybody in terms of recognizing the seriousness of leaks and ensuring that they are dealt with in an extremely prompt and responsive fashion. What is at issue here is whether we are going to give an opportunity for U.S. attorneys--professionals in their fields--to handle this particular inquiry. I see no evidence that the way the U.S. attorneys are handling this investigation at this time is not with the highest standards of professionalism. I have disagreed with the Attorney General on plenty of issues. My colleagues know I have been particularly in disagreement with the Attorney General on this issue of secret law. I think there are real questions about whether laws that are written in the Congress are actually the laws that govern their interpretations. So I have disagreed with the Attorney General on plenty of matters. I think I have demonstrated by writing that law with Senator Bond that I want to be as tough as possible on leakers. But I would now have to object to the request from our colleague from Arizona simply because I believe it is premature. For that reason, Mr. President, I object to the request from the Senator from Arizona.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, the Select Committee on Intelligence has just reported a bill that would extend the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 for 5 more years. I voted against this extension in the Intelligence Committee's markup because I believe that Congress does not have enough information about this law's impact on the privacy of law-abiding American citizens, and because I am concerned about a loophole in the law that could allow the government to effectively conduct warrantless searches for Americans' communications. Consistent with my own longstanding policy and Senate rules, I am announcing with this statement for the Congressional Record that it is my intention to object to any request to pass this bill by unanimous consent. I will also explain my reasoning a bit further, in case it is helpful to any colleagues who are less familiar with this issue. Over a decade ago the intelligence community identified a problem: surveillance laws designed to protect the privacy of people inside the United States were sometimes making it hard to collect the communications of people outside the United States. The Bush administration's solution to this problem was to set up a warrantless wiretapping program, which operated in secret for a number of years. When this program became public several years ago many Americans--myself included--were shocked and appalled. Many Members of Congress denounced the Bush administration for this illegal and unconstitutional act. However, Members of Congress also wanted to address the original problem that had been identified, so in 2008 Congress passed a law modifying the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA. The purpose of this 2008 legislation was to give the government new authorities to collect the communications of people who are believed to be foreigners outside the United States, while still preserving the privacy of people inside the United States. Specifically, the central provision in the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 added a new section to the original FISA statute, now known as section 702. As I said, section 702 was designed to give the government new authorities to collect the communications of people who are reasonably believed to be foreigners outside the United States. Because section 702 does not involve obtaining individual warrants, it contains language specifically intended to limit the government's ability to use these new authorities to deliberately spy on American citizens. The bill contained an expiration date of December 2012, and the purpose of this expiration date was to force Members of Congress to come back in a few years and examine whether these new authorities had been interpreted and implemented as intended. Before Congress votes this year to renew these authorities it is important to understand how they are working in practice, so that Members of Congress can decide whether the law needs to be modified or reformed. In particular, it is important for Congress to better understand how many people inside the United States have had their communications collected or reviewed under the authorities granted by the FISA Amendments Act. If only a handful of people inside the United States have been surveilled in this manner, then that would indicate that Americans' privacy is being protected. On the other hand, if a large number of people inside the United States have had their communications collected or reviewed because of this law, then that would suggest that protections for Americans' privacy need to be strengthened. Unfortunately, while Senator Udall of Colorado and I have sought repeatedly to gain an understanding of how many Americans have had their phone calls or e-mails collected and reviewed under this statute, we have not been able to obtain even a rough estimate of this number. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence told the two of us in July 2011 that ``it is not reasonably possible to identify the number of people located in the United States whose communications may have been reviewed'' under the FISA Amendments Act. I am prepared to accept that it might be difficult to come up with an exact count of this number, but it is hard for me to believe that it is impossible to even estimate it. During the committee's markup of this bill Senator Udall and I offered an amendment that would have directed the inspectors general of the intelligence community and the Department of Justice to produce an estimate of how many Americans have had their communications collected under section 702. Our amendment would have permitted the inspectors general to come up with a rough estimate of this number, using whatever analytical techniques they deemed appropriate. We are disappointed that this amendment was voted down by the committee, but we will continue our efforts to obtain this information. I am concerned, of course, that if no one has even estimated how many Americans have had their communications collected under the FISA Amendments Act, then it is possible that this number could be quite large. Since all of the communications collected by the government under section 702 are collected without individual warrants, I believe that there should be clear rules prohibiting the government from searching through these communications in an effort to find the phone calls or e-mails of a particular American, unless the government has obtained a warrant or emergency authorization permitting surveillance of that American. Section 702, as it is currently written, does not contain adequate protections against warrantless ``back door'' searches of this nature-- even though they are the very thing that many people thought the FISA Amendments Act was intended to prevent. Senator Udall and I offered an amendment during the committee's markup of this bill that would have clarified the law to prohibit searching through communications collected under section 702 in an effort to find a particular American's communications. Our amendment included exceptions for searches that involved a warrant or an emergency authorization, as well as for searches for the phone calls or e-mails of people who are believed to be in danger or who consent to the search. I am disappointed that this amendment was also voted down by the committee, but I will continue to work with my colleagues to find a way to close this loophole before the FISA Amendments Act is extended. I recognize that the collection that has taken place under the FISA Amendments Act has produced some useful intelligence, so my preference would be to enact a short-term reauthorization to give Congress time to get more information about the impact of this law on Americans' privacy rights and consider possible modifications. However, I believe that protections against warrantless searches for Americans' communications should be added to the law immediately. An obvious question that I have not answered here is whether any warrantless searches for Americans' communications have already taken place. I am not suggesting that any warrantless searches have or have not occurred, because Senate and committee rules regarding classified information generally prohibit me from discussing what intelligence agencies are actually doing or not doing. However, I believe that we have an obligation as elected legislators to discuss what these agencies should or should not be doing, and it is my hope that a majority of my Senate colleagues will agree with that searching for Americans' phone calls and e-mails without a warrant is something that these agencies should not do.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I came to the floor to talk about legislating. I was struck, in fact, by the comments recently because what I am here to talk about is essentially the yeoman's bipartisanship we have seen with Senator Stabenow and Senator Roberts on the farm bill. I am going to talk about some specific ideas, each of which I believe could win bipartisan support and help strengthen the legislation as we go forward in the Senate. I believe it is hard to overstate the importance of writing the best possible farm bill in the Senate. When America desperately needs more jobs, and 1 in every 12 American jobs is tied to agriculture, this bill is an opportunity for the private sector to grow more jobs. When obesity rates are driving the American health care challenge, this bill can promote healthier eating without extra cost to taxpayers. When we are concerned about the threat to our treasured lands and air and water, this bill is our primary conservation program. When our rural communities are especially hard hit, and the Presiding Officer knows about this because she has a lot of rural country in her State, these rural communities are walking on an economic tightrope, and this bill can be a lifeline. I spent much of last week in rural Oregon. In my State, Oregonians do a lot of things well, but what we do best is grow things--lots of things. Oregon grows more than 250 different crops, including everything from alfalfa seed to mint and blueberries. Several weeks ago, the Oregon Extension Service reported that agricultural sales in my home State increased more than 19 percent in 2011. Agriculture in Oregon is now more than a $5 billion industry annually, and much of this is driven by high prices for wheat and cattle and dairy products, fruits, vegetables, and other specialty crops. The fact is, agriculture is the lodestar to prosperity for many rural Oregon communities. Nationwide, there are many other towns in a similar position to the small communities I have the honor to represent in the Senate. That is what is apropos about this talk and the need for bipartisanship. Senator Schumer listed a number of these bipartisan areas. I consulted with the chair of the Agriculture Committee, Senator Stabenow, and the ranking member, Senator Roberts, who I also served with in the other body. After getting their counsel, I selected 28 Oregonians, from every corner of my State and across all types of agriculture, to help serve as an advisory committee on ways to improve the economic opportunities for Oregon, specifically through this bill. We have the good fortune to have the committee chaired by Mrs. Karla Chambers, who owns a farm in the Willamette Valley, Stahlbush Farms, and also Mike Thorne, a wheat farmer in eastern Oregon. From the outset, this advisory committee did not talk at all about politics, did not talk about whether there was a Democratic way to write a farm bill or a Republican way to write a farm bill. What they did talk about was the importance of the issues I have just outlined: jobs, health care, conservation, rural communities. That is what they spent their time focused on and particularly the jobs issue was central to their discussion. There are about 38,000 farms in my home State which roughly support 234,000 jobs. That is about 11 percent of our State's employment. As much as 80 percent of the agricultural goods produced in Oregon are sold out of State. Half of that is exported to foreign countries. That is especially important to me because I chair the trade subcommittee of the Senate Finance Committee. So what I have taken as the centerpiece of my approach to agriculture and to our country's economy is that we ought to do our very best to: grow things in the United States, to add value to them in the United States, and then ship them somewhere. It is especially important for Oregon agriculture. As I just noted, 80 percent of the agricultural goods that are produced in our State are sold out of State. Abroad, our producers are doing very well. Nationally, each $1 billion in agricultural exports is tied to approximately 8,400 American jobs. These growing overseas markets represent a way to create and sustain good-paying jobs that rely on export sales. In fact, agriculture is one of the only sectors with a trade surplus, and in 2011, it boasted a surplus totaling $42.5 billion--the highest annual surplus on record. That is why I was honored to have a chance--when Chairman Baucus was tied up in discussions with respect to the super committee--to manage a significant part of the debate on the three recently passed free-trade agreements, which again give us a chance, as I have indicated, to build on that proposition that I have outlined, where we grow things here, add value to them here, and then ship them somewhere else. Nothing says that more than giving those opportunities to producers from Oregon to Florida. They sell their fruits and vegetables, their wheat, their beef, their nursery crops, and other high-value products at home and abroad. The farm bill continues those programs that American producers rely on to help market their goods in foreign markets. I think it is important again to stress the bipartisanship associated with making sure there are bountiful opportunities for American agriculture and particularly for Oregon agricultural goods. The second area my agriculture advisory committee focused on was stressing the importance of healthy nutrition here at home. Of course, the USDA, our Department of Agriculture, has recommended eating five fresh fruits and vegetables daily. What that means is that from Burns, OR, to Bangor, ME, farm programs need to make it easier for those with low incomes to be able to eat healthier. There never ought to be a tradeoff between health and affordable food. So I think we have to look at some fresh approaches to promote healthy nutrition in this country. I believe it is not just an economic threat to our economy, it is also a national security threat to our Nation because we have seen, regrettably, that many Americans who would like to wear the uniform of the United States, patriots, have not been able to pass the health standards necessary to serve in our military. In the past three decades, obesity rates have quadrupled for children ages 6 to 11. More than 40 percent of Americans are expected to be obese by 2030. The Centers for Disease Control reports that in 2008 alone, the United States spent $147 billion on medical care related to obesity. Obesity is the top medical reason one in four young people cannot join the military, and it has been identified by the Department of Defense as a threat to national security. It doesn't have to be this way. I wish to outline some specific ideas for changing that and to promote good health in our country without adding extra costs to taxpayers. One opportunity for change is through the Farm to School Program. Again, without costing taxpayers additional money, it ought to be easier for delicious pears, cherries, and other healthy produce, grown just a few miles down the road, to make it into our schools. This ought to be a national approach. Schools from Springfield, OR, to Savannah, GA, currently purchase their fruits and vegetables from USDA--the Department of Agriculture--warehouses, which may be hundreds of miles away. Many of our farmers and our producers would like to sell their goods to local schools, and many schools would like to source their produce locally. The farm bill ought to promote that. When I was in Oregon last week, I had a chance to meet with the management of Harry & David. They are a major employer in my State, and an Oregon pear producer. They told me they want to sell their fruit to schools down the street, but instead a complex maze of Federal rules and regulations has created a hassle for them, and the process sounds like bureaucratic water torture. So I am going to offer an amendment that would make it less of a hassle for producers such as Harry & David and farmers to sell directly to local schools, all without spending additional Federal dollars. A second opportunity to improve our Nation's health lies with the SNAP program, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, better known as food stamps. This program currently spends over $70 billion a year. This is the big expenditure in the farm bill, and there is no way to really determine whether it promotes good nutrition. Think of all of the possibilities for helping our country, all the possible benefits if the SNAP program did more to improve nutritional outcomes for those who use the program. Let me make clear that I am not for cutting benefits. I understand the crucial lifeline this program provides for millions of our people. What I am interested in doing is seeing that, through that $70 billion, it is possible to improve nutritional outcomes, all while getting the best value out of that enormous expenditure. One of the ways we could do it would be to allow States to obtain a waiver from the SNAP program when they bring their farmers, their retailers, their health specialists, and their beneficiaries together and say: We have a consensus for improving the nutritional outcomes in our State, for those on the Food Stamp Program, the SNAP program. They ought to be able to get a waiver in order to do that and help us produce more good health in America. That is not some kind of national nanny program. That is not telling people they can only eat this or that. It is just common sense to have farmers, retailers, those on the program, and health specialists look, for example, to try to create some voluntarily incentive to promote better nutrition with this enormous expenditure, and I intend to offer an amendment to do that. A third opportunity for improvement is through what is known as gleaning. Historically, gleaners gathered leftover produce from the fields, but today gleaners play a crucial role in reducing the staggering amount of food that goes to waste each year. At a time when food waste is the single largest category of waste in our local landfills--more than 34 million tons of food--again, without spending extra taxpayer money, we can do more to ensure that this unwanted food is used to tackle hunger in America. Led by the dedicated work of local food banks, many are striving to put America's food bounty to better use. In Portland, OR, Tracy Oseran runs a wonderful nonprofit organization known as Urban Gleaners. They are poised to collect surplus food--hundreds of thousands of pounds of food--from grocers, restaurants, parties, and all kinds of social organizations, and they redistribute those hundreds of thousands of pounds of food to organizations that serve the hungry. Urban Gleaners is doing great work, but they could be doing a lot more. Without spending a dime of extra money, we can advocate for gleaners all across America by making it possible for them to receive loans through the Microloan Program. If someone is trying to set up a gleaning program in a small town and they have to borrow, say, $20,000 to start a refrigeration program to preserve the quality of the food, let's make it possible for the gleaners to do that. I am not proposing--and I discussed this with the chair of the committee, Senator Stabenow, and Senator Roberts, the ranking minority member--to allocate one additional dime to the program. I think it is a fine program. I simply want to say that when we have gleaners in our country who are telling us about the enormous amount of food that is still wasted despite their tremendous efforts, let's not pass up an opportunity to, with this bill, make it possible to promote gleaning in our country. To produce the healthy food needed to feed America, we need fertile agricultural land, and conservation plays a central role in that. Roughly 28 percent of Oregon's land mass is devoted to agricultural production. Maintaining this land is crucial for our long-term productivity. For more than half a century, the farm bill has supported infrastructure modernization and conservation projects. They give, once again, the opportunity for collaboration, and that is key to our natural resources. I see my friend from Arizona, Senator McCain, here. We talked about doing this in the forestry area years ago. We ought to be promoting collaborative projects to boost rural economies. It is the Oregon way, and we ought to build on that in this farm bill as well. The time is also ripe to promote farmers markets and locally grown food, which will lead to greater awareness of local markets, roadside stands, and community-supported agriculture. This farm bill expands those opportunities, and I think these types of local initiatives give us the opportunity to change the trajectory--the tragic and staggering trajectory--of obesity in this country, and to ensure the viability of these programs, the land required to produce nutritious foods must be addressed. I plan to offer, as I have indicated in these comments, a number of amendments to the farm bill, each of which I have discussed with the chair of the committee, Senator Stabenow, and ranking member, Senator Roberts. The farm-to-school amendment that I will offer would not spend additional taxpayer money, but it would make it easier for schools to purchase locally for the breakfast, lunches, and snacks they serve children. My second amendment would allow States across this country to get a waiver under the SNAP program, so they can consult with their farmers, their retailers, their health specialists, and those who use it, and try to come up with a way to get more good health and nutrition out of the $70 billion that is spent on the program. States ought to have an opportunity to do that so that the SNAP program can be a launch pad for healthier eating rather than just a conveyor belt for calories. With a waiver, States with innovation and effective ideas could improve nutritional outcomes and put their good ideas into action. Third, I intend to offer an amendment--again, it doesn't spend additional taxpayer money--to promote gleaning through the Microloan Program. Finally, based on the recommendations of the Institute of Medicine, I will offer an amendment to make it possible to advance some of the recommendations of the Institute of Medicine to look at the relationship between agriculture policy, the diet of the average American, and how we can reduce childhood obesity. This amendment would give us a chance to advance the recommendations of the Institute of Medicine. They have made a number of thoughtful proposals that I think will give us a chance to reduce obesity and promote our national security, and we certainly should pursue them through this farm bill. The last comment I will make is that I think Oregonians got it right, and I think we ought to be building on the work done by Senator Stabenow and Senator Roberts. At a crucial time in American history, this bill can help us grow more jobs, it can help us improve the health of the people of our country without spending additional money, and it is an opportunity to protect our treasured land and air and water. Finally, it is a lifeline for rural communities--these communities that I have described as walking on an economic tight rope. I intend to work with my colleagues on a bipartisan basis. I have heard all this talk about how the legislating is over. We ought to build on the work that has been done already and get this important bill across the finish line because it will be good for our economy, for our national security, and it will be good for our health and for our environment. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, yesterday I joined with Chairman Bingaman to introduce legislation to address an urgent threat to America's national forests: the lack of resources to fight serious wildfires that at this very moment are burning on more than 300,000 acres in our country. To date--and it is certainly early in the fire season--more than 830,000 acres already have burned. The heart of the problem is, as the fires have gotten bigger, the Forest Service airtanker fleet to fight these fires has gotten smaller. In 2006, the Forest Service had 44 large airtankers under contract in their fleet. Last week, they had just 11 large airtankers under contract, and 10 of those averaged 50 years of age. After the very tragic events of this past weekend--in which one of those airtankers crashed and its courageous pilots were killed and another had a failure of its landing gear and sustained serious damage--the Forest Service is down to nine large airtankers. This is an extraordinarily serious problem and a solution is long overdue. The reason I have come to the floor this afternoon is that Congress has an opportunity to expedite what could be the beginning of a solution. The Forest Service now is ready to begin awarding contracts for the next generation of airtankers, consistent with their large airtanker modernization strategy. On May 25, as is required by law, under 41 U.S.C. 3903(d), the Forest Service gave Congress a 30-day notification of its intent to award four multiyear contracts, which contain cancellation ceilings in excess of $10 million and require congressional notification. These four contracts would, in effect, begin to fill the Federal Government's need for large airtankers to fight wildfires. The 30-day waiting period is simply delaying urgently needed action. Without congressional action, these contracts will not be awarded until June 25. My view is, with hundreds of thousands of acres burning and a severely depleted capacity for sending airtankers to battle these fires, I see nothing that can be served by the Congress sitting on its hands and waiting for those 30 days to expire. The Forest Service requested that Congress waive the requirement to wait the full 30 days to award these important contracts. The sooner the Forest Service can award these contracts, the sooner the companies that receive the awards can begin to deliver those next-generation airtankers and get them out fighting the fires. I wish to be clear that I do not know the details of these contracts and have no idea as to which companies that submitted bids are going to be the successful recipients, but I do know the Forest Service has complied with its obligation to notify the Congress. Congress has been notified with the required information, and I just fail to understand how the country is going to benefit by simply letting time pass. I urge my colleagues to see how important and how serious this fire situation is and approve the critical legislation I have introduced with Chairman Bingaman. At this very moment, there are 11 uncontained large fires nationally, 152 new fires that have been reported in just the last 24 hours, and dire predictions about hot and dry conditions combining with strong winds, looming thunderstorms, and arid lands across much of our landscape. All these factors contribute to a dangerous fire situation on the ground. Yet, as we speak, the Forest Service now has only nine airtankers to assist those hard-working fire crews. Eight of those tankers are getting to the point where they ought to be considered museums in the sky. While the Forest Service can and should use all possible assets--such as helicopters and innovative options such as the 20,000 gallon Very Large Airtankers--and the agency is likely to need to call in the National Guard, the large airtankers remain a critically important tool for fire suppression. In fact, the firefighting agencies mobilized airtankers 153 percent above the 10-year average in 2011. Yet these planes needed to assist on-the- ground firefighters have dwindled to the dire shortage--they have atrophied to the point I have described this afternoon. This lack of resources is coming at a time when the Nation's forests are very vulnerable to fire. The fire season is early, but we are already seeing the production of record-breaking fires. Fire seasons are getting longer and they are more severe and we are seeing more and more of what the professional foresters called a megafire. From 2000 to 2008, at least 10 States had fires of record-breaking size. The Forest Service indicated in its airtanker mobilization strategy that the agency will need up to 28 of these airtankers in order to adequately battle fire threats. So the Forest Service says we need 28. As of this moment, this afternoon, there are only nine. I am asking today for the Senate to recognize the seriousness of the threat and let the Forest Service proceed in awarding these new contracts as rapidly as possible. The legislation Chairman Bingaman and I have introduced would enable the agency to do just that and begin to tackle this extraordinarily serious health problem. In closing, I wish to express my thanks to all of America's courageous and dedicated firefighters. They put themselves in harm's way to protect our communities, and we should be grateful to them and to the pilots and companies and agency personnel who tirelessly battles these fires. I believe, on behalf of every Member of the Senate, it is appropriate to express our deepest condolences to the families and colleagues and friends of the recently deceased pilots. I hope by advancing the legislation I have described this afternoon, Congress will be sending a message to those courageous firefighters and those with whom they work that the Congress is beginning to put in place a system that would provide them real relief. With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, on June 6 the Council for a Livable World will celebrate its 50th anniversary. In a time when our country continues to face a host of global threats, it is important that we recognize the vital work that the Council for a Livable World carries out each and every day to mitigate these threats, and to make our world a more peaceful, a more livable place. The Council for a Livable World was founded in 1962 by nuclear physicist Leo Szilard and other scientists. Szilard, of course, is famous for advocating for the creation of the Manhattan Project that helped create the first atomic weapon. In the aftermath of WWII, he, and others that saw the destructive power of atomic weapons became concerned about their use and spread. Although times have changed since then--Russia has replaced the Soviet Union, the Cold War is over--the threat of nuclear catastrophe is still ever-present. Terrorists seek these weapons of mass destruction, and nefarious regimes such as North Korea continue to threaten the world with their own nuclear weapons. The Council recognizes this continuously changing threat environment and believes that it is short-sighted and counterproductive to continue relying on Cold War measures, such as an overwhelming nuclear arsenal that could destroy the world many times over. As former Council Chairman Senator Gary Hart said, ``you must properly understand what security is and how it is to be achieved, or all the military spending in the world will not make you more secure.'' Those words rang true then, and they continue to ring true now. The Council for a Livable World believes, like I do, that the United States must work toward a ``world free of nuclear weapons.'' They expressly advocate for deep reductions, and the eventual elimination, of nuclear weapons. This advocacy leads to real, tangible results, and not just results in the nuclear weapon reductions arena. Some notable accomplishments include the ratification of the Chemical Weapons Convention and Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces, Conventional Forces in Europe, and the first Strategic Arms Reduction treaty; establishing a U.S. nuclear testing moratorium in 1992; limiting the deployment of the MX missile; eliminating funding for the nuclear ``Bunker Buster,'' and ratification of the New START Treaty in 2011. So I hope everyone will join me today in recognizing the Council for a Livable World and the important work that they do to make our world a better place. Congratulations on the past 50 years and good luck in the 50 years that lay ahead. Maybe by then our children will be living, finally, in a world free of nuclear weapons.''

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, right now, the Obama Administration is in the process of negotiating what might prove to be the most far-reaching economic agreement since the World Trade Organization was established nearly twenty years ago. The goal of this agreement--known as the Trans Pacific Partnership, TPP--is to economically bind together the economies of the Asia Pacific. It involves countries ranging from Australia, Singapore, Vietnam, Peru, Chile and the United States and holds the potential to include many more countries, like Japan, Korea, Canada, and Mexico. If successful, the agreement will set norms for the trade of goods and services and includes disciplines related to intellectual property, access to medicines, Internet governance, investment, government procurement, worker rights and environmental standards. If agreed to, TPP will set the tone for our nation's economic future for years to come, impacting the way Congress intervenes and acts on behalf of the American people it represents. It may be the U.S. Trade Representative's, USTR, current job to negotiate trade agreements on behalf of the United States, but Article 1 Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution gives Congress--not the USTR or any other member of the Executive Branch--the responsibility of regulating foreign commerce. It was our Founding Fathers' intention to ensure that the laws and policies that govern the American people take into account the interests of all the American people, not just a privileged few. Yet, the majority of Congress is being kept in the dark as to the substance of the TPP negotiations, while representatives of U.S. corporations--like Halliburton, Chevron, PHRMA, Comcast, and the Motion Picture Association of America--are being consulted and made privy to details of the agreement. As the Office of the USTR will tell you, the President gives it broad power to keep information about the trade policies it advances and negotiates, secret. Let me tell you, the USTR is making full use of this authority. As the Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee's Subcommittee on International Trade, Customs, and Global Competitiveness, my office is responsible for conducting oversight over the USTR and trade negotiations. To do that, I asked that my staff obtain the proper security credentials to view the information that USTR keeps confidential and secret. This is material that fully describes what the USTR is seeking in the TPP talks on behalf of the American people and on behalf of Congress. More than two months after receiving the proper security credentials, my staff is still barred from viewing the details of the proposals that USTR is advancing. We hear that the process by which TPP is being negotiated has been a model of transparency. I disagree with that statement. And not just because the Staff Director of the Senate subcommittee responsible for oversight of international trade continues to be denied access to substantive and detailed information that pertains to the TPP talks. Congress passed legislation in 2002 to form the Congressional Oversight Group, or COG, to foster more USTR consultation with Congress. I was a senator in 2002. I voted for that law and I can tell you the intention of that law was to ensure that USTR consulted with more Members of Congress not less. In trying to get to the bottom of why my staff is being denied information, it seems that some in the Executive Branch may be interpreting the law that established the COG to mean that only the few Members of Congress who belong to the COG can be given access to trade negotiation information, while every other Member of Congress, and their staff, must be denied such access. So, this is not just a question of whether or not cleared staff should have access to information about the TPP talks, this is a question of whether or not the administration believes that most Members of Congress can or should have a say in trade negotiations. Again, having voted for that law, I strongly disagree with such an interpretation and find it offensive that some would suggest that a law meant to foster more consultation with Congress is intended to limit it. But given that the TPP negotiations are currently underway and I-- and the vast majority of my colleagues and their staff--continue to be denied a full understanding of what the USTR is seeking in the agreement, we do not have time to waste on a protracted legal battle over this issue. Therefore, I am introducing legislation to clarify the intent of the COG statute. The legislation, I propose, is straightforward. It gives all Members of Congress and staff with appropriate clearance access to the substance of trade negotiations. Finally, Members of Congress who are responsible for conducting oversight over the enforcement of trade agreements will be provided information by the Executive Branch indicating whether our trading partners are living up to their trade obligations. Put simply, this legislation would ensure that the representatives elected by the American people are afforded the same level of influence over our nation's policies as the paid representatives of PHRMA, Halliburton and the Motion Picture Association. My intent is to do everything I can to see that this legislation is advanced quickly and becomes law, so that elected Members of Congress can do what the Constitution requires and what their constituents expect.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, right now, the Obama Administration is in the process of negotiating what might prove to be the most far-reaching economic agreement since the World Trade Organization was established nearly twenty years ago. The goal of this agreement--known as the Trans Pacific Partnership, TPP--is to economically bind together the economies of the Asia Pacific. It involves countries ranging from Australia, Singapore, Vietnam, Peru, Chile and the United States and holds the potential to include many more countries, like Japan, Korea, Canada, and Mexico. If successful, the agreement will set norms for the trade of goods and services and includes disciplines related to intellectual property, access to medicines, Internet governance, investment, government procurement, worker rights and environmental standards. If agreed to, TPP will set the tone for our nation's economic future for years to come, impacting the way Congress intervenes and acts on behalf of the American people it represents. It may be the U.S. Trade Representative's, USTR, current job to negotiate trade agreements on behalf of the United States, but Article 1 Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution gives Congress--not the USTR or any other member of the Executive Branch--the responsibility of regulating foreign commerce. It was our Founding Fathers' intention to ensure that the laws and policies that govern the American people take into account the interests of all the American people, not just a privileged few. Yet, the majority of Congress is being kept in the dark as to the substance of the TPP negotiations, while representatives of U.S. corporations--like Halliburton, Chevron, PHRMA, Comcast, and the Motion Picture Association of America--are being consulted and made privy to details of the agreement. As the Office of the USTR will tell you, the President gives it broad power to keep information about the trade policies it advances and negotiates, secret. Let me tell you, the USTR is making full use of this authority. As the Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee's Subcommittee on International Trade, Customs, and Global Competitiveness, my office is responsible for conducting oversight over the USTR and trade negotiations. To do that, I asked that my staff obtain the proper security credentials to view the information that USTR keeps confidential and secret. This is material that fully describes what the USTR is seeking in the TPP talks on behalf of the American people and on behalf of Congress. More than two months after receiving the proper security credentials, my staff is still barred from viewing the details of the proposals that USTR is advancing. We hear that the process by which TPP is being negotiated has been a model of transparency. I disagree with that statement. And not just because the Staff Director of the Senate subcommittee responsible for oversight of international trade continues to be denied access to substantive and detailed information that pertains to the TPP talks. Congress passed legislation in 2002 to form the Congressional Oversight Group, or COG, to foster more USTR consultation with Congress. I was a senator in 2002. I voted for that law and I can tell you the intention of that law was to ensure that USTR consulted with more Members of Congress not less. In trying to get to the bottom of why my staff is being denied information, it seems that some in the Executive Branch may be interpreting the law that established the COG to mean that only the few Members of Congress who belong to the COG can be given access to trade negotiation information, while every other Member of Congress, and their staff, must be denied such access. So, this is not just a question of whether or not cleared staff should have access to information about the TPP talks, this is a question of whether or not the administration believes that most Members of Congress can or should have a say in trade negotiations. Again, having voted for that law, I strongly disagree with such an interpretation and find it offensive that some would suggest that a law meant to foster more consultation with Congress is intended to limit it. But given that the TPP negotiations are currently underway and I-- and the vast majority of my colleagues and their staff--continue to be denied a full understanding of what the USTR is seeking in the agreement, we do not have time to waste on a protracted legal battle over this issue. Therefore, I am introducing legislation to clarify the intent of the COG statute. The legislation, I propose, is straightforward. It gives all Members of Congress and staff with appropriate clearance access to the substance of trade negotiations. Finally, Members of Congress who are responsible for conducting oversight over the enforcement of trade agreements will be provided information by the Executive Branch indicating whether our trading partners are living up to their trade obligations. Put simply, this legislation would ensure that the representatives elected by the American people are afforded the same level of influence over our nation's policies as the paid representatives of PHRMA, Halliburton and the Motion Picture Association. My intent is to do everything I can to see that this legislation is advanced quickly and becomes law, so that elected Members of Congress can do what the Constitution requires and what their constituents expect.

Mr. WYDEN

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

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I believe the development of the Internet, its networks, and the digital economy are one of the great achievements of our age. The Internet links humanity together, facilitating economic growth, bringing education and health resources to remote regions, reshaping societies and advancing human rights. While networks foster innovation, job creation, and political and social progress, networks can also be used by actors with nefarious motives. It is in our national interest to deter, detect, and destroy real and viable cyber threats, to protect Americans and preserve the benefits of the Internet. Americans must not be afraid to go online. The Internet works not just because it is open to all but because it is founded on the principle of trust. Users trust that their browsers are visiting real Web sites, not replicated ones. Internet commerce succeeds because people trust that their transactions are private and their financial information won't be shared with others. People trust the Internet because they believe their service providers work for them, not for their advertisers, not for scammers, and not for the government. Congress's effort to develop a comprehensive approach to cybersecurity must not erode that trust. When Americans go online to consume digital services and goods, they must believe and know with some certainty that their privacy is adequately protected. The content that Americans consume must be at least as private as their library records, their video rentals, and book purchases in the brick-and- mortar world. Our law enforcement and intelligence agencies should not be free to monitor and catalog the speech of Americans just because it is online. But the legislation passed by the other body, known as CISPA, would erode that trust. As an attempt to protect our networks from real cyber threats, CISPA is an example of what not to do. CISPA repeals important provisions of existing electronic surveillance laws that have been on the books for years, without instituting corresponding privacy, confidentiality, and civil liberty safeguards. It creates uncertainty in place of trust, it erodes statutory and constitutional civil rights protections, and it creates a surveillance regime in place of the targeted, nimble, cybersecurity program that is needed to truly protect our Nation. Unfortunately, S. 2105, the bill before the Senate, shares some of these defects. Currently, Internet services and service providers have agreements with their customers that allow them to police and protect their networks and users. Rather than simply allowing these Internet companies to share information on users who violate their contracts and pose a security threat, the House and Senate proposals regrettably authorize a broad-based information-sharing regime that can operate with impunity. This would allow the personal data of individual Americans to be shared across a multitude of bureaucratic, military, and law enforcement agencies. This would take place regardless of the privacy agreements individual Americans have with their Internet service providers. In fact, both the House and Senate bills subordinate all existing privacy rules and constitutional principles to the poorly defined interests of what is called cybersecurity. These bills would allow law enforcement agencies to mine Internet users' personal data for evidence of acts entirely unrelated to cybersecurity. More than that, they would allow law enforcement to look for evidence of future crimes, opening the door to a dystopian world where law enforcement evaluates your Internet activities for the potential that you might commit a crime. In establishing this massive new regime, these bills fail to create the necessary incentives for operators of critical networks to keep their networks secure. It is a fundamental principle of cybersecurity policy that any network whose failure could result in a loss of life or significant property should be physically isolated from the Internet. Unfortunately, many of our critical network operators have violated this principle in order to save money or streamline operations. This sort of gross negligence ought to be the first target in any cybersecurity program--not the privacy of individual Americans. Congress could target this behavior with yet one more rule book and one more bureaucracy, creating a cybersecurity contractor full employment program. I am not, however, convinced this is a problem that requires that kind of solution. At the same time, Congress should not allow our critical network operators to ignore best practices with impunity. It is vital they understand that any liability for a preventable cyber attack is their responsibility. There is not going to be a governmental bailout after the fact in the cybersecurity area. Shareholders and boards of directors must be vigilant and understand the risks to their investments. Executives must understand that ignoring critical cyber threats in the interest of cost savings and convenience will leave them personally exposed. Internet providers and backbone operators clearly have a role in this fight. When they detect abnormal network activity or have a user violating their contract in a way that constitutes a cyber threat, they can and should inform our cyber defense officials. If it is necessary to grant them immunity to share this kind of information, the Congress could grant it--narrowly and with careful consideration. Mr. President, there would be bipartisan support for the proposition that the Federal Government also has a significant role that does not necessarily require billing taxpayers for legions of private cybersecurity contractors. The Department of Defense, the Department of National Intelligence, Homeland Security, and the Justice Department-- four major parts of our government--all have cybersecurity specialists. The Congress ought to be promoting the cyber capabilities of these agencies and providing the resources that are needed to protect these networks. These Federal agencies should do a better job of consulting the private Internet companies to better understand the attacks that are occurring every day across the net. Some of these steps may require legislation, but many can be carried out by responsible actors in the public and private sector without waiting for the Congress to act. However, the legislation before the Senate and the cybersecurity legislation that passed the other body leads our country away from the kind of commonsense approach to cybersecurity I have outlined this afternoon. As they stand, these bills are an overreaction to a legitimate and understandable fear. The American people are going to respond by limiting their online activities. That would be a recipe to stifle speech, innovation, job creation, and social progress. I believe these bills will encourage the development of an industry that profits from fear and whose currency is Americans' private data. These bills create a cyber industrial complex that has an interest in preserving the problem to which it is the solution. In terms of the process, the Senate ought to proceed in a way that is as open and collaborative as the Internet the Congress seeks to promote and protect. On substance, any cybersecurity bill must contain specific and clear descriptions of what types of data and when such data can be captured, with whom it can be shared, and under what circumstances. Anything not specifically covered ought to remain private. Privacy in the cybersecurity arena should be the default not the exception. Legal immunity to corporations that share information should be the exception not the rule and void if privacy protections or contracts are disregarded. The Congress and the public must have the ability to know how any cybersecurity program that is established is to be implemented. That means routine public and unclassified reports and hearings to examine whether there were any unintended privacy or civil liberty impacts caused by the program. No secret law, Mr. President. Bad Internet policy is increasingly premised on false choices. Earlier this year, during the consideration of the Protect IP Act and the Stop Online Piracy Act, the Congress was told again it had a false choice. The Congress was told it either could protect intellectual property or it could protect the integrity of the Internet. This was a false choice. I and others said so at the time because achieving one should not and does not require sacrificing the other. Now the Congress is being asked once again to make a false choice--a choice between cybersecurity and privacy--and I don't think these two are mutually exclusive. I think we can have both. Our job is to write a cybersecurity bill that protects America's security and the fundamental right to privacy of our people. There is no sound policy reason to sacrifice the privacy rights of law-abiding American citizens in the name of cybersecurity. It is my intent to fight any legislation that would force Members of the Senate to make that choice. Mr. President, with that I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, without turning this into a bouquet-tossing contest, I want Senator Conrad to know how much I appreciate his leadership. I also want to make sure people understand the record. If the Congress had passed the bipartisan proposal the Senator put together on the budget with Senator Judd Gregg, the Conrad-Gregg proposal--a Democrat joined with a Republican--in 2010 we could have forced an actual effort to put together a comprehensive tax reform and spending agreement. As we know--and I don't need to go over the history--some of the sponsors of the proposal were not even willing to go along. But I think it is important that the country understand we have to do this in a bipartisan way. If Senator Conrad and Senator Judd Gregg had prevailed in 2010, we could have forced actual spending reductions and tax reform in a bipartisan effort. I sure wish we had proceeded with it. And as one who supported it, I still think that would have been preferable. For 7 years before being elected to the Congress, I had the honor of serving senior citizens. I ran the Senior Citizens Legal Aid Office, I served as the public advocate on our State's nursing home board, and I taught gerontology at several of our universities. What I enjoyed most was the personal contact I had with senior citizens as a voluntary board member of our senior nutrition program. It is known as Loaves and Fishes, and through it I could bring meals to seniors at their homes on a number of occasions as part of the Meals on Wheels Program. Meals on Wheels is one part of government that truly understands the connection between the heart and the head. It touches the heart because I saw when we bring a nutritious meal to seniors, we can spend time visiting with them at home. Often they will tell us that we are the only visitor they will have during that day. It causes us to use our head and a sharp pencil. We can see without Meals on Wheels, as sure as the night follows the day, some of those seniors are not going to be able to stay in the community. They will end up needing institutional services, and those services are more costly. And, of course, seniors will often be less happy with those kinds of institutional programs. I bring up Meals on Wheels today because several of the proposals that are offered by colleagues on the other side of the aisle are not going to be bipartisan because they substantially cut the part of the budget that funds Meals on Wheels. Through our research we specifically found that in several instances it will be between 17 and 59 percent in just the upcoming year. Putting Meals on Wheels at risk like that defies common sense. I have already indicated from a compassion standpoint alone it warrants support. But even if Meals on Wheels doesn't grab your heart the way it does for me, it certainly ought to get the attention of your head because it is the kind of program that lets seniors have more of what they want, which is to be at home at less price to the taxpayers. It defies common sense to not be bipartisan in terms of approaching something like Meals on Wheels. I think what is common sense is what Chairman Conrad and other colleagues have touched on, and that is tackling the big issues in a bipartisan way. Certainly when it comes to Medicare, that is what is needed. I would only say, having worked in this area, we ought to start with the fact that we are looking at--I am not the first to describe this--a demographic tsunami. For the next 20 years we are going to have 10,000 seniors turning 65 every single day--10,000 seniors turning 65 every single day. Fortunately, we have made a commitment in this country to those senior citizens, and it is called the Medicare guarantee. That is the commitment we have made to older people. It is a commitment to good quality, affordable health care. And if absolutely nothing is done, it is a commitment at risk. If nothing is done, the Medicare guarantee is in peril. My own sense is that if nothing is done, Medicare--as Senator Conrad pointed out, it is already facing cuts with sequestration--will face a steady diet of benefit cuts and cost shifting until we do not recognize the Medicare guarantee as it stands today. That is unacceptable to me. It ought to be unacceptable to every Member of the Senate. As Chairman Conrad has noted, Medicare reform is going to have to be bipartisan. The reason I believe that is that if it is not, much like we saw with health care reform, if it is done on a partisan vote, as soon as the ink is dry on the signature of the passed bill, the other side will move to undo it or repeal it or radically alter it. I say the Medicare guarantee is too important for that, and that is why I, with other colleagues on both sides of the aisle and the help of the chairman, have been working to get bipartisan Medicare reform ready and teed up for enactment at the first possible opportunity. It is outlined on my Web site, Bipartisan Options for Reform. I am interested in working with every colleague here in the Senate to pursue it. Here is what it is going to take: First and foremost, it will protect the most vulnerable seniors, what are called the dual eligibles, which are seniors who are eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid. The protections for those dual eligibles must be ironclad. Unfortunately, a number of the offerings we are going to see from colleagues on the other side do not ensure ironclad protections for these vulnerable seniors--the dual eligibles--and by block-granting Medicaid, they put at risk the most vulnerable seniors, the seniors who need nursing home care that is paid for by Medicaid, and since Medicaid is a Federal-State program, by block-granting it, we put at risk the most vulnerable seniors. That is certainly not in line with what people will see on my Web site that outlines bipartisan approaches on which Democrats and Republicans can come together for Medicare reform. The second part of Medicare reform is to ensure that we protect traditional Medicare. Traditional Medicare mandates that the government pay doctors and other providers for services, as well as providing private sector choices that have to offer coverage that is at least as good as traditional Medicare. By doing that, we force traditional Medicare and the private choices to hold each other accountable. It is going to be pretty hard to protect traditional Medicare and its purchasing power with some of what we are going to see later this afternoon that actually proposes to end traditional Medicare within the space of 2 years. Third, Medicare reform--and we went into this in a very good hearing that was held in Chairman Conrad's Budget Committee--is going to require comprehensive consumer protection. I have been involved in this since the days when I would go visit senior citizens and they would bring out a shoe box full of health insurance policies that weren't worth the paper on which they were written. It was a Medigap scandal that we finally fixed in 1990. I have seen how these rip-off artists try to exploit our seniors. So at Chairman Conrad's hearing we talked about comprehensive consumer protections and specifically ensuring that any Medicare reform would have to have a strong risk-adjustment program so that if, for example, any network of health care providers or an insurer took mostly healthy people, their contribution from the government would be far less than the contribution that would be afforded for a program that took a greater number of older people with health challenges. So I bring this up only by way of saying I am committed to bipartisan Medicare reform. I think Medicare is really sacred ground. It can only be preserved and protected by ensuring that we take the steps I have just outlined--three or four of them this afternoon--which ensure that we put seniors and their well-being before ideology and politics. This afternoon we are going to hear several alternatives offered by colleagues from the other side of the aisle that, in my view, don't do that, don't meet that test. In effect, we are going to be dealing with ideology rather than the kinds of principles I have outlined here today that I think can win support from colleagues on both sides of the aisle and that people can see on my own Web site have attracted the support of influential Republican voices. So we have a test to meet. It is a test that builds on a bipartisan approach to a program that is sacred--I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute.

Mr. WYDEN. Approximately 12 minutes.

Mr. WYDEN. --and that is built around a Medicare guarantee that must be protected and preserved. A number of the proposals we will get from the other side this afternoon don't meet that test. I want colleagues to know that I am committed to working with them to produce what America wants in this Congress; that is, bipartisan Medicare reform that ensures that this very special program prospers in the days ahead. We are up to it. We are up to it if we build on the bipartisan example Senator Conrad started years ago with Senator Gregg. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I strongly support this legislation, S. 2343, the Stop the Student Loan Interest Rate Hike Act. I appreciate the leadership particularly of Senator Reed of Rhode Island, who has been so eloquent on this subject. I also would note that Senator Alexander and I have worked together on a host of issues. I think he brings great expertise to this discussion as well. The bottom line for me is that millions of young people are hurting right now in America. They are up to their eyeballs in debt and they cannot find good-paying jobs. For example, we have seen in our home State, according to the Oregon Employment Department, that the overall unemployment rate last year was 9.4 percent but was 19 percent for workers age 16 to 24. I also note we have seen that the labor participation for young people has declined as well. We have an enormous array of challenges in front of us. The reason that this legislation, the Stop the Student Loan Interest Rate Hike Act, is so important is that it allows us to achieve two important objectives. First, it puts us in a position to hold the line on student debt. If you are a sophomore in college, for example, and you have already incurred some debt and you want to finish school, then you want to get a degree in a field where you will get a job that pays a good wage. Without this legislation you are going to incur still more debt. So this legislation ought to be supported because it holds the line on debt, and by doing so it helps us achieve a very important objective: to increase the opportunity for young people to access higher education across the country. And historically whether it has been through Pell grants or Stafford loans and the like, we've always said to young people, try to get to college. Families sitting around kitchen tables and in their living rooms have said this for years. Work hard in high school and try to get into college. And I have supported, here in the Senate, policies that increase access to a good education. By holding the line on debt, we can take steps to achieve an important part of higher education policy, and that is expanding access to higher education. The second benefit of this legislation, in my view, is that by holding the line on debt we increase the opportunity for young people to get more value out of their education. The reason I bring this up is because my sense is that future policy in the higher education field is going to be about marrying these two objectives. Let's support this important legislation, S. 2343, to expand access, and use it as a foundation to move on to the next step of education policy, which is to get more value out of the education a young person pursues. The reason I feel that way is that all over my State I am going to high schools and community colleges and talking with students who are thinking about both of those principles, access and value. For example, at Blue Mountain Community College in Pendleton I met a young man who is taking 20 credits at school, working at Arby's full time as a manager, and he is already concerned about the debt he is racking up. He said to me: As I get my education, how will I know that I have laid the groundwork for being able to get a good-paying job? I told him, just as I am suggesting to the Senate today, that I am going to support efforts to expand student aid and make sure we hold down debt for young people. I described what we are dealing with on the floor of the Senate. I also told him I have introduced a piece of legislation with my colleague on the other side of the aisle, Marco Rubio, called the Student Right To Know Before You Go Act. This bill will make it possible for students all across the country to get information about the expected average annual earnings after graduation, the rates of remedial enrollment for a particular field at a particular college, the average costs both before and after financial aid, and the prospects of a student earning a good wage after achieving a particular degree at a particular school. With this legislation we lay the foundation for what I think will be the education policy of the future. We will ensure that students have access and ensure that they get more value out of their education and get more value out of the loans and other debt that they have to pay back. And the two go hand in hand. I ran into students who were juniors, for example, at colleges in my State and already owe $60,000. Without this legislation, those juniors are probably going to reup for a loan, and they are going to have to pay more, and that has the effect of reducing access to higher education. Paying more, it seems, is also going to reduce the opportunity for students to buy a bit more value out of their education as we try to get them better information with respect to the value of specific degree programs at specific schools. This type of information is now impossible to find. Suffice it to say, these two judgments, both with respect to the debt and the value of what they have pursued in terms of their college degree, are going to color their decisions for the rest of their lives. One of the students I met in Oregon recently as I talked about this issue was interested in getting a medical degree. And as we have talked about health care issues--which the President of the Senate and I have both been very interested in over the years--one of the questions he asked me was how was he going to be able to get a medical degree initially and what would happen to him when he got out of medical school with all of this debt hanging over his head. I didn't want to chill his enthusiasm, but we know that if a young person comes out of medical school with an enormous amount of debt, there is a pretty good chance at some point they are going to have to pass some of that debt on to their patients, which means we are going to see medical costs for a lot of people in our country escalate still higher. So the fact that we have these debts and the fact that it is hard for young people to purchase value in their education is going to have remarkable ripples all through our country for years and years ahead. I am going to close simply by way of saying this: We have seen young people contribute to our economy. The President of the Senate shares an interest with this Senator in technology. Technology has been a big source of jobs in States such as Minnesota and Oregon. This has been a real economic engine for our country. Think about who brought us Facebook and Google and Twitter and YouTube. A disproportionate amount of the creative talent has been young people. So we must first take steps to hold the line on debt--and that is to pass Senator Harkin's and Senator Reid's bill--so we don't say to college sophomores and juniors, we don't care if they rack up any more debt when we know how much heartache it is going to bring to them. Then we can move on to the next step, which is empowering students and families to be able to get the maximum amount of value from their education. If we don't take these steps I think we will have let the country down in this area at a crucial time. We understand that higher education is one of the principal paths, if not the best path, to success for many students. It is not for every student, but certainly for millions. And education has enabled many young people to contribute to technology which has been, as I described, a real spark for our economy. So I see other colleagues waiting to speak, and I only urge colleagues to pass this legislation, S. 2343, to ensure that we don't heap more debt onto the backs of students in college now and who might be reupping on those loans and wondering if they can afford it. Then as we expand access, let's look at taking additional steps to ensure that our young people get more value for their college education. Senator Rubio and I have teamed up on a bill that I think addresses that question, the Student Right To Know Before You Go Act. Going to that next step and adding more value to a young person's education when they are armed with the facts requires that we lay the foundation of access to a good education, which I think should be required when so many young people are hurting. I went through the statistics, and it requires that we pass S. 2343. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, on May 20 the world will see an encouraging sight. On that day, President Ma Ying-jeou of the Republic of China will be sworn in for a second term on the island of Taiwan. I was so pleased to see yet another free, fair, democratic election take place on January 14. I want to take a moment to wish President Ma and the people of Taiwan success and prosperity as their young democracy continues to flourish and serve as an example for other countries in the region. The difference in governance can be striking when Taiwan is compared to some of its neighbors in the region. Taiwan's experiment with democracy is less than two decades old, but it has demonstrated spectacular progress, holding direct democratic elections in every Presidential election since 1996. The people of Taiwan vigorously exercise their right to vote--three out of every four Taiwanese citizens voted in the January elections--and they feel empowered to petition their government, voice their grievances, peacefully assemble, and, in general, enjoy many of the political freedoms that Americans hold dear. Taiwan is an important economic partner of the United States and is a robust and growing market for American exports. Just last month, as chair of the Senate Finance Subcommittee on International Trade, I held a hearing on agricultural export opportunities to Asia. As Asia continues to experience impressive economic growth, it is important to remember that Taiwan is the sixth largest destination for American agricultural exports. More can be done to improve bilateral trade between our two countries though, and I hope President Ma and his colleagues in the Legislative Yuan will move quickly to resolve the outstanding issues surrounding American beef imports. President Ma made good progress in his first 4 years in improving cross-strait relations and has worked hard to promote peace and prosperity in the region. I commend both sides' work in developing and signing the Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement between the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China. I am confident that President Ma will continue to work to ensure cross-strait stability and cultivate an environment free from intimidation. The people of Taiwan have much to be proud of as they celebrate the inauguration of President Ma. The relationship between the people of the United States and the people of Taiwan is based on shared values and common interests. I look forward to seeing Taiwan grow and prosper, and want the Taiwanese people to know that they have an unshakeable ally in the United States as they continue forward as a young democracy.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President and colleagues, this amendment is for the more than 25 million Americans--more than 800,000 of them serving in the military--who vote by mail in our system of government, the most open and free system of government in the world. Those millions of Americans may vote absentee, they may vote in what is called no-excuse absentee, or they may vote in an all-mail election, but they deserve this fall to have the assurance from the U.S. Senate that as we reform the Postal Service, the election will not be disrupted. I hope my colleagues will support this. I think it has been discussed at length on both sides of the aisle. It has always been bipartisan to try to expand the franchise. I hope we can pass this on a voice vote. I wish to thank both Chairman Lieberman and Senator Collins, who had a real challenge handling all of these amendments and who have been very gracious, both of them, as always. I yield the floor.