Floor Statements

Mr. President, September 17 was Constitution Day--a day when folks are encouraged to teach and learn about the Constitution. I would like to recognize the middle and high school students from across the Nation who traveled to the U.S. Capitol yesterday in honor of Constitution and Citizenship Day.

I would also like to recognize the students unable to travel to Washington, DC, who are no less engaged in their studies of the Constitution and citizenship, specifically the many students in my home State of Oregon who have shown a strong commitment to civic engagement. These young Oregonians have demonstrated a willingness to get involved in their communities and work for positive change and are an example of the important role community involvement plays in developing a strong society.

Of the students able to be in Washington, DC, on Constitution Day, I would particularly like to recognize several middle school students from Oregon who visited my office yesterday.

Alyssa Etheridge and several of her classmates from South Middle School located in Grants Pass, OR, dedicated every day of the last school year to honor the 142 Oregon soldiers who made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan. These young women created the Bayard Wilkeson Project--named for a Civil War officer killed at the battle of Gettysburg--a Web site designed to educate Oregonians about the lives of those servicemembers from our State who have given their lives for our country.

Coming from Portland, OR, William Britton and his seventh grade class from Southwest Charter School studied and considered the problem of outdoor secondhand smoke, and its impact on the health of their community. They conducted surveys, interviews, and lobbied some of their local elected officials to control secondhand smoke exposure.

It is wonderful to see these students participate so actively in the democratic process, and it is truly heartening to see so many young people taking the time to get involved and express their opinions. I am pleased to be able to recognize the commitment and dedication these young Oregonians have shown to better their communities and urge them to keep up their good works.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, this month America celebrates the 50th anniversary of both the Wilderness Act and the Land and Water Conservation Fund. I am going to spend a few minutes today--and I believe I am going to be joined at various times by a number of colleagues--to talk about the important role these two storied pieces of legislation have played in creating a legacy of protection and access to America's treasures.

First, people may not remember, perhaps given the way some in Congress talk about wilderness these days, but the Wilderness Act had an extraordinary bipartisan push behind it. It passed 73 to 12 in the Senate and 373 to 1 in the other body. Then congressional champions included leading Democrats and Republicans of that time. To celebrate the success of this landmark piece of legislation today--and it is the middle of Wilderness Week--I introduced a Senate Resolution, along with our colleague on the other side of the aisle, Senator Sessions, commemorating the 50th anniversary of the passage of the Wilderness Act.

Just like the original bill, our bipartisan resolution has numerous cosponsors and the support of our colleagues from both sides of the aisle. Part of the beauty of the Wilderness Act lies in the balance that was forged between immediately designating some places as wilderness in 1964 as part of the enactment, while providing a pathway for future designation.

It is that balance that has helped to make the Wilderness Act one of our country's most democratic pieces of legislation in our rich history. By requiring future legislation, it compelled citizen activists to go out at the grass roots level to involve their friends and neighbors to seek permanent protection for the special places that were important to them.

While passing wilderness designations through Congress has been far from easy, the reward has been extraordinary.

Since the act was signed, Congress has designated more than 110 million acres of Federal lands as wilderness and each acre a gift to our future from our past selves.

Next to me a few of those acres are in a photo of Mirror Lake and Mount Hood, part of the Mount Hood Wilderness within the Mount Hood National Forest in my home State of Oregon.

Mount Hood is an Oregon icon. Ava and William Wyden, our twins, 6 years old--pictures available on my iPhone after this discussion--ski there. They have already recognized, at a very young age, that Mount Hood is an icon.

Wilderness, there and across America, has been called the gold standard of conservation, keeping areas under the strongest level of protection the law provides and ensuring that they remain wild for future generations to appreciate and enjoy. By identifying what places deserve wilderness protection in an open, inclusive fashion, the country ensures full public debate, opportunities to bring people together to build a consensus, sensitivity to rural traditions and local economic needs, with an end product being wilderness areas that all Americans can be proud of.

Creating wilderness is not only important for preservationists, it is also crucial for conservationists, outdoor enthusiasts everywhere, and for all those who make a recreation economy hum--the outfitters, the guides, the lodges, and the mom-and-pop diners. The fact is that the recreation economy supports hundreds of thousands of jobs in rural America and generates billions of dollars of economic activity across our country.

That is also where the Land and Water Conservation Fund comes in because it helps to secure and maintain public access to the country's public lands and wilderness areas for recreation and enjoyment.

Also celebrating its 50th anniversary this month is the Land and Water Conservation Fund. This exceptionally important program is responsible for protecting areas in all 50 States and our territories. This includes such special places, iconic places, as the Grand Canyon National Park, many of our storied

Civil War battlefields, and numerous national wildlife refuges.

In my home State of Oregon the fund has helped protect many of our most precious outdoor treasures, such as the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area, Crater Lake National Park, the Pacific Crest Trail, and the Oregon Dunes. Equally important, the Land and Water Conservation Fund feeds States critical funds that help create and maintain the local parks, the trails, and the recreational facilities.

Every year the Treasury collects billions of dollars of revenue, from offshore oil drilling and other sources of energy production. Out of that total, the Land and Water Conservation Fund is authorized to receive up to $900 million a year.

It is in my view a balanced approach, it is a simple approach, and it is a constructive approach to managing public lands with some of the money the country makes from extracting resources, taking that money and turning it around, and reinvesting it in the country's unique, open spaces.

There are tremendous economic benefits to the investment the fund makes. Nationwide, 98 percent of our counties contain land protected by the fund, and in these places America's outdoor recreation economy generates $646 billion in consumer spending and supports more than 6 million jobs.

Few States enjoy the outdoors more than Oregonians. It is almost as if the outdoors is a part of our gene pool.

We see ourselves as outdoors people, and outdoor recreation accounts for nearly $13 billion in consumer spending in our State, and it supports 141,000 Oregon jobs.

As I mentioned before, in addition to its Federal role, the Land and Water Conservation Fund helps the States. It provides matching grants so that State and local governments can use those funds to build new parks that are going to help struggling cities or towns develop. Or, they can maintain natural spaces that are critical to the quality of life in those local communities.

But the bottom line is, those investments--Federal, State, and local investments--lead to job creation. We know that recreation opportunities drive tourism, especially in our counties where there is a significant amount of protected lands.

Those who are recreating go to the local restaurants, go to the local shops, and they stay in the hotels. Often they look for outfitters and guides.

Economists note that job growth in rural western counties, where there is a significant amount of federally protected land, is four times faster than in areas where we do not have that measure of Federal protection.

These are just some of the many reasons why failing to give the Land and Water Conservation Fund the resources it needs, in my view, would be nothing short of legislative malpractice.

Unfortunately, despite the fact that 80 percent of Americans approve of the program's mission, it has been consistently underutilized, underappreciated and, yes, underfunded. As a result, jobs, growth, and protection--needed protection for these treasures--are left behind.

I plan to introduce two bills that would help to secure the future of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. The first bill would provide a 1- year extension of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, and the second bill--that I hope to be able to introduce very shortly--would make it permanent because I believe that dedicated, stable funding will ensure our public lands continue to be preserved and accessible to support those recreationists of the future, the conservationists of the future, and the local economic leaders of the future who will prosper as a result of those investments.

In closing I will simply note that we celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Wilderness Act and the Land and Water Conservation Fund as millions of families across the country return from summer vacations to the parks and wilderness areas that these great laws have helped to preserve and enrich.

Children everywhere are sharing stories in their schools about how they went fishing, hiking, and camping in their Nation's backyards.

If realized to their greatest potential, the Wilderness Act and the Land and Water Conservation Fund are sure-fire ways to help guarantee that the next generation of Americans will continue to have access to beautiful recreation areas, captivating historic sites, and pristine wilderness. Strong, robust funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund will help grow economies and create jobs in every State nationwide.

Finally, let me note that until recently I had the honor of chairing the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. As chair, I had the opportunity to work particularly with two colleagues who are on the floor now, the distinguished Senator from Colorado, Mr. Udall, and the distinguished Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Heinrich. It makes me feel very good that they are here because, as Westerners, they see day in and day out what we are talking about with respect to the importance of this program and this extraordinary contribution it has made to the country.

These two great Western leaders, with respect to natural resources, understand it is not only about the past. It is not just about the wonderful half century that I have taken the time to note. These are two leaders--Senator Udall of Colorado and Senator Heinrich of New Mexico--who I think are going to be part of the leadership, the leadership that works to protect these two great programs for years to come.

I am very grateful to have the opportunity to be on the floor with them.

I had a chance particularly to see some of the treasures in Colorado recently. I can see why Senator Udall feels so strongly.

New Mexico is one of the few States I have not visited, so I hope I will be able to wrangle an invitation to join Senator Heinrich.

But I want to leave the floor knowing that as we make this commitment to do all we can to make the protection part of our extraordinary outdoor spaces part of the legacy we leave for our children and grandchildren, the case for these two programs--and advocating for them--is in very good hands with Senator Udall and Senator Heinrich.

I yield the floor.

The Senator is correct. I want to express my full support for the administrative guidance issued by the IRS in Rev. Proc. 2014- 35. I would also point out to the Senator that the bill requires under its ``Statutory Construction'' provision of section 2(c), that any ambiguities in new Code section 139E shall be resolved by the IRS in favor of Indian Tribal governments and deference shall be given to Indian Tribal governments for programs administered and authorized by the Tribe to benefit the general welfare of the Tribal community.

I fully share the Senator's concern and want to assure her as well as Tribal interests that the Congressional intent, as well as mine as chairman of the Finance Committee, is to expand rather than restrict the safe harbor provisions in Rev. Proc. 2014-35. The purpose of this legislation is to further empower Tribal self-determination. Tribes, and not the IRS, are in the best position to determine the needs of their members and provide for the general welfare of their Tribal citizens and communities.

Mr. President, I rise as chairman of the Senate Finance Committee to strongly support the Senate's passage of an important tax bill, H.R. 3043, the Tribal General Welfare Exclusion Act of 2014. This bill will improve the application of the Federal income tax in Indian Country and in doing so will reflect appropriate respect for the sovereignty of tribal governments.

By way of background, the Federal Tax Code treats most payments that individuals receive, and the value of some services they receive, as taxable income. There is an exclusion, though, for payments and services received under programs conducted by State and local governments. It's called the general welfare exclusion, and it covers things like housing assistance, emergency medical care, and education assistance. These are traditionally treated as nontaxable.

Unfortunately, the IRS has had difficulty applying the general welfare exclusion when it comes to benefits provided by tribal governments to tribal members. In order to determine which benefits were excluded from taxation, the IRS began conducting aggressive audits, leaving the tax treatment of many tribe-provided benefits in doubt. As Delores Pigsley, chairman of the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians Tribal Council, put it in a letter to me, ``for several years, the IRS has sought to tax tribal government programs and services.'' This, in turn, has undermined tribal sovereignty and hindered economic and social development.

I am pleased to report that there has been some significant progress. In July, the IRS issued regulations clarifying the application of the exclusion, and the regulations were a good step in the right direction, clearing up some questions and reflecting an improved dialogue between the IRS and tribes. However, a regulation is not a congressional statute; we need to lock these improvements into statutory law, as well as expand on them such as by establishing a Tribal Advisory Committee to help the Treasury Department and the IRS understand about how best to address tax issues affecting Indian Country.

The bill we are considering today would accomplish these goals. It codifies and expands IRS regulations, draws clear lines, and gives greater respect to tribal institutions and programs.

I would like to acknowledge the principal sponsors of the Senate version of the bill, Senators Moran and Heitkamp, for their leadership. I also would like to thank Senators Stabenow, Thune, and other members of the Finance Committee, who have urged the committee to move forward on this issue.

Tribal governments have a long history of providing critical benefits to tribal members, and these programs are fundamental to the sovereignty and cultural integrity of tribes. Tribes, and not the IRS, are in the best position to determine the needs of their members and provide for the general welfare of their tribal citizens and communities. I know this bill has the support of tribes in my home State of Oregon and will benefit tribes and tribal members across the Nation. I urge all Senators to support the bill.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to yield back all time on both sides.

Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. President, at an important time for the Social Security program, the Senate now votes on three nominations to the Social Security Advisory Board which the Congress established to provide critical input and perspective on the Social Security Program. All three of these nominees are very well qualified, and they are strong and independent thinkers.

The first is Dr. Henry Aaron. Dr. Aaron is one of America's foremost experts on Social Security. His many publications and contributions to the program make him an invaluable asset. I strongly urge Senators to support his confirmation on this bipartisan board.

The second is one of the Senate's own, Dr. Alan Cohen, a veteran economist of the Finance Committee staff. He will be an excellent board member.

The third is Dr. Lanhee Chen. Dr. Chen has a particularly commendable academic record.

I yield the additional time to Senator Cardin, who has great expertise on Social Security.

Mr. President, I yield the floor and urge their confirmation.

Mr. President, this weekend, the Northwest Youth Corps celebrated its 30th year of providing young people with opportunities to learn and lead. For three decades, Northwest Youth Corps has educated youth and young adults and instilled in them a strong sense of leadership, community, and environmental stewardship.

Northwest Youth Corps, NYC, founder Art Pope created NYC in 1984. Mr. Pope's inspiration for the NYC stemmed from the 1930s-era Civilian Conservation Corps, CCC, which provided work to the unemployed during the Great Depression. Mr. Pope was inspired by the hands-on, education- based model of the CCC and wanted to extend the vision of hard work and service to modern youth. The NYC philosophy encourages youth to pursue individual achievement, develop a solid work ethic and leadership skills, all while benefitting their communities and the environment.

Thirty years ago, NYC extended this vision to its first class of 52 students. Today, NYC serves more than 1,000 teens per year across 5 States. NYC offers a wide variety of programs for youth and teens from 12 to 19 years old. Youth enrolled in NYC summer programs learn conservation values in a hands-on learning environment. Summer programs range from teaching youth how to build trails and enhance natural habitats to 6-week camping programs where teens learn reforestation techniques. At the summer program graduation last year, I saw firsthand the sense of accomplishment and pride NYC students feel upon completing 6 weeks of conservation efforts in our State's beautiful forests.

In 1997, NYC drew from the success of its summer programs and established a full-year high school. Over the past 17 years, the OutDoor High School has grown into a fully-accredited, tuition-free, private high school with a strong focus on applied learning and environmental stewardship.

NYC's hands-on conservation education programs have enriched the lives of more than 16,000 students over the past 30 years, and have touched countless communities and ecosystems across the west. It is my pleasure to recognize Northwest Youth Corps 30th anniversary. I look forward to NYC's continued contribution to the community for many, many more years.

Mr. President, the Internet has been possibly the most significant force driving our economy over the past 16 years. It is clearly this century's shipping lane and history's most powerful communications tool. Part of the reason the Internet has revolutionized American life is that it has been protected from discriminatory taxation, thanks to the Internet Tax Freedom Act, first enacted 16 years ago.

This law, as we might expect, is extraordinarily popular among the American people, and it has obviously been of enormous importance to the millions of families and businesses that use the Internet each day.

However, in a few short months the Internet Tax Freedom Act is set to expire. If it does, millions of American Internet users could face multiple and discriminatory taxes from thousands of state and local tax collectors around the country. That cannot be allowed to happen. Congress needs to come together on a bipartisan basis and say clearly: Don't hit the Internet with discriminatory taxation.

Sixteen years ago I was the author of the Internet Tax Freedom Act, along with our former Republican colleague, Congressman Chris Cox. Along with our colleague from South Dakota, Senator Thune, and 52 bipartisan cosponsors, I am the author of the pending bill that would make that protection permanent. I believe if we were able to hold a vote on our bill today, it would pass with overwhelming support. Unfortunately, that is not a political reality. Yet the clock keeps ticking toward expiration.

Protecting the Internet and every Internet user in our country ought to be a matter that takes precedence over politics and partisanship. The Senate can move this short-term extension today while the Senate works on a bipartisan basis to deal with the issues raised by those who believe that allowing localities to collect taxes across the country is more important than a ban on discriminatory taxation.

I hope the Senate will join me in supporting the temporary extension of the Internet Tax Freedom Act as a bridge to permanent legislation.

To reflect very briefly for a minute, we thought this law would work well 16 years ago. To describe what triggered my interest, 16 years ago, when I was a young Member of this body and I had a full head of hair and rugged good looks, we would hear for example about how if someone bought the newspaper--the online edition of the paper--they would face a stiff tax in some jurisdictions,

but if they bought the snail mail edition they wouldn't face the tax. Democrats and Republicans coming together said that is discriminatory. That is discriminating against technology, against the future, against the promise of the Internet.

We thought this proposal would work well. It is quite clear. We just have to make sure what we do online is not more burdensome and an endeavor that involves more taxes than what we do offline. That is what the bill has been all about. So we thought it would be promising, but it has far exceeded our expectations in terms of what it has done to promote innovation and for small businesses and others who don't have political action committees and don't have big lobbies advocating for them. Ensuring they are not hammered by multiple and discriminatory taxes by thousands of localities has been a lifeline in terms of their being successful.

I could take more time this morning. We have colleagues and of course many matters still to deal with before we leave. I hope that given this history, which has been a bipartisan history--I so enjoyed working with our former colleague Chris Cox on this legislation 16 years ago. My take is that the overwhelming number of Senators would like to permanently reauthorize this ban on multiple and discriminatory taxes on the Internet today, and that is what Senator Thune and I have sought to do in our legislation, which has more than half of the Senate cosponsoring it. That is not possible today. But what is possible is that we act now so we don't bump up against that deadline that if reached our small businesses are subject--we have more than 5,000 taxing jurisdictions, and if even a small number of them were to inflict discriminatory taxes on Internet commerce, that would be a big blow in a fragile economy.

So for purposes of the temporary extension of the Internet Tax Freedom Act as a bridge to permanent legislation, let us say loudly and clearly that we as a body--we as the U.S. Senate--are not going to hammer the Internet with multiple and discriminatory taxes.

I yield the floor. I note the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I am going to be brief, having spoken on this already once today. I simply want to highlight my sense of where all of this is. Back in 1998, along with Congressman Chris Cox, a Republican Congressman from California, one of the most market-oriented individuals I have ever seen in public service, he and I came together to write the original Internet Tax Freedom Act. The reason we did is we were concerned about discrimination, which looked as though it could do enormous damage to innovation and the future of the Internet. For example, we saw early on that if someone bought the newspaper in some jurisdiction online, they would pay a hefty tax. But if they bought the snail-mail edition, they would pay no tax.

So Congressman Cox and I, on a bipartisan basis, came together and said: ``We do not want to see that kind of discrimination against the future. We do not want to see that kind of discrimination against innovation and technology.'' So that is what the Internet Tax Freedom Act was all about in 1998. The subsequent reauthorizations were all about trying to build on that enormous success.

Congressman Cox and I thought the Internet tax freedom bill would be a success back in 1998. It has far exceeded expectations in terms of promoting innovation and small business and many of the concerns that all three colleagues have touched on.

So then to fast forward to today, I am the author of the legislation, with our colleague from South Dakota, Senator Thune, of the permanent Internet tax freedom extension. I will just say to colleagues: I would like nothing more--nothing more--than to be able to stand here today to see this enormously valuable piece of legislation made permanent now.

The reality, however, is--and we have seen it and heard about it-- there are objections on both sides at this point to seeing the bill I wrote with Senator Thune--and Senator Cruz correctly notes that more than half of the Senate has co-sponsored--we have objections to seeing that bill move today. So the best thing that can be done now, for the hundreds of millions of American Internet users and the economy for which the Internet is a lifeline, is to extend the current ban until it is

possible to lock in a path to pass a permanent extension.

This is not a political issue. That point has been made. There are a number of Democrats and Republicans who join myself and Senator Thune in supporting the permanent moratorium. There are a number of Republicans and Democrats opposing the extension of that moratorium, reluctantly. We will have that debate. They seem to think it is okay to impose discriminatory taxes on the Internet.

So it seems to me that no one who supports keeping the moratorium in place ought to object to a short-term extension now. Doing so only makes it more likely that Internet access and services would be subject to discriminatory taxation.

Let me now, in the interest of time, simply ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. 2735, a 2-month extension of the Internet Tax Freedom Act, to December 31, 2014, the text of which is at the desk; that the bill be read three times and passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Madam President, to briefly respond to the Senator from Texas.

Madam President, reserving the right to object, just to be clear: Senator Cornyn would speak next, and then Senator Sanders would speak after him?

I withdraw my reservation.

Madam President, very briefly to describe where I think the Internet tax debate is, we have Republicans and Democrats objecting to what I happen to think is in the country's national interest, and that is a permanent ban on Internet tax discrimination. So we have Republicans and Democrats objecting to that.

Now my colleague from Texas comes forward and says: OK, let's not do a 2-month extension because we don't want to consider this in the lame duck session. But, colleagues, if you don't do the 2-month extension, the Internet Tax Freedom Act will have expired and you are still in the lame duck session. And by the time you get to the lame duck, millions of Americans will be vulnerable to discriminatory Internet taxes.

I am going to close this discussion by saying that in my view neither of the options is exactly ideal, because I think I made it very clear after 16 years that I would like to make permanent the ban against discriminatory taxes. Neither situation is ideal from my standpoint because Republicans and Democrats both object to doing that today. But what we know is that one option we have in front of us today is worse than the other, and the really bad option is to not do a short-term extension and leave millions of Americans vulnerable to discriminatory taxes.

With that, Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, it is no secret that this Transportation bill is not the Senate's first choice. However, the alternative to acting tonight on transportation is to put at risk America's economy, our communities, and our quality of life. As Senator Hatch noted earlier tonight, the Senate had a real transportation debate this week with amendments, alternatives, and bipartisan initiatives. This will serve us well as we begin to work as soon as the Senate returns to develop a long-term, bipartisan transportation plan that ensures that our big-league economy is not plagued by little-league infrastructure.

I urge the Senate to support the legislation.

Madam President, today, July 31, 2014, marks the 225th anniversary of the signing by President George Washington of legislation establishing the U.S. Customs Service, the oldest legacy agency of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, CBP, currently within the Department of Homeland Security. The U.S. Customs Service was created by the 5th Act of the 1st Congress.

The U.S. Customs Service placed controls on imports and exports and on shipping and trade, which were deemed essential by the founders of the Republic, and would have been impossible without implementation by an honest, resourceful, and efficient Customs Service. The original Customs collectors, the Customs houses, and today's CBP officers have stood for 225 years as the embodiment of Federal authority at our ports of entry.

After 225 years, the ever more complex demands of our economy and our society require CBP officers to remain alert and ready to perform on short notice a widening variety of tasks. Today's dedicated CBP personnel, and their predecessor Customs inspectors, have been the first line of defense against the entry into the United States of terrorists, terrorist weapons, illicit drugs and other contraband goods, while protecting the economic well-being of the Nation, and supporting American jobs, by facilitating legitimate trade and travel, and protecting this country's intellectual property rights.

Madam President, I would like to honor the city of Portland for hosting its first Major League Soccer All Star game on August 6. Major League Soccer, MLS, has rightly chosen Providence Park and the Portland Timbers as host for their annual All Star event, which this year pits the MLS All Stars against European giants, Bayern Munich.

Soccer City, USA--as Portland fans have dubbed it--rightly deserves to host such a high-profile match. Portland is home to the most passionate fan base in the league for both the Timbers and the inaugural champions of the National Women's Soccer League, the Portland Thorns. Timbers games drew more than 20,000 fans per game last season, and the Thorns averaged over 13,000 for home games. And, of course, I have to mention the awesome banners displayed by Portland fans at Providence Park, which are second to none.

This year, the Timbers' head coach, Caleb Porter, along with players Diego Valeri and Will Johnson, will represent our hometown team for the MLS All Stars. Congratulations to them for making all Oregonians proud. Special thanks should also go to team owner Merritt Paulson, whose hard work getting a team to Portland paid off when he was awarded this great event.

I commend the Portland Timbers, the Portland Thorns, the Timbers Army, and the Rose City Riveters for their stellar community outreach and charity work in Oregon. Whether it is partnering with the Make-A- Wish Foundation, building soccer fields for youth, or collecting school supplies for local schools, the Portland Timbers show they are a first- class organization through their outstanding civic engagement.

I send my congratulations to the MLS players who have made the All Star team and who will represent the league against an international opponent. It is exciting to host Bayern Munich, a team who fields some of the recent World Cup championship players from Germany. I wish both teams good luck in the match, but as the Timbers Army says: ``There's no pity in the Rose City!'' Go MLS All Stars.

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

Mr. President, today there are wildfires burning across the West. I wish to speak for a few moments about some very important work that Chair Mikulski and her colleagues have done on the Appropriations Committee that is really built on a bipartisan proposal that Senator Crapo, our colleague from Idaho, and I, with a large group of bipartisan Senators, are proposing to change the way in which forests are managed and reduce the likelihood of some of--what I call-- these infernos. These are fires that are bigger, hotter, more damaging, and they act like a wrecking ball pounding at the rural West.

What has happened over the years is that the preventive efforts in the West in terms of our forests are underfunded. There isn't enough effort that goes to hazardous fuels management and thinning and programs that reduce the huge load of fuels on the forest floor.

Just this past weekend I was in Medford in rural southern Oregon and in Portland, meeting with the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management. They told me about the problems that Senator Crapo and I are trying to address in bipartisan legislation that Chairman Mikulski has included in her appropriations bill.

The heart of the problem is that these prevention efforts are underfunded. When it gets very dry and very hot, and particularly when there is a lightning strike or a series of lightning strikes, what we have is an enormous fire in a hurry. All through the West there is an effort to try to share resources, and communities work together and try to share efforts--aerial resources and others--but the reality is there is not enough money in the agency's budgets to put out those huge fires.

What happens then is the bureaucracy borrows from the prevention fund in order to have funds to put the fire out. Then we are on our way to two bigger problems. We are on our way again to a lack of preventive dollars because of this fire borrowing. Some of our colleagues call it fire robbery, but I am trying to be diplomatic. It is fire borrowing, I guess, if we want to be diplomatic. But we underfund prevention. Then, of course, we don't have enough money needed for suppression as well.

This trend that I have described is getting more and more pronounced and more and more serious. So what Senator Crapo and I are proposing to do in order to put the focus on wildfire prevention is in effect to say that the most serious fires, especially in the West--the kind of fires that are dominating our TV screens night after night--1 percent of those infernos ought to be treated like the major natural disasters they are and would be funded in the same way as other natural disasters, such as floods and hurricanes.

Specifically, the legislation that Senator Crapo and I and others are advancing would move any spending above 70 percent of the 10-year rolling average for fire suppression outside of the Agency's baseline budget by making these additional costs eligible to be funded under a separate disaster account.

So far this year, more than 33,000 fires have burned a total of 1.6 million acres nationwide, and the numbers are growing by the minute.

Just this past weekend, visiting with our wonderfully talented folks at the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management in Medford, they were telling me that their concern is that in southern Oregon it is very hot and very dry and there can be lightning strikes. They were concerned about the prospect of another Biscuit Fire, which we had at the beginning of the century and which burned 500,000 acres--really, our most destructive fire ever. That was what was on the mind of the firefighting professionals when I visited with them in Medford last Friday.

This year the administration already expects to exceed its firefighting budget by more than $600 million, and that isn't going to surprise anybody in the West. In 8 of the past 10 years, the Forest Service has spent more than its wildfire suppression budget, requiring the Agency to engage in what I have just called ``fire borrowing'' to cover these wildfire suppression costs. The reality is that, in many cases, the borrowed monies are not repaid. In the cases where the funds are repaid, it is only through costly supplemental spending bills that Congress has to enact or by taking money out of future years' budgets.

So what we have is this kind of borrowing that is extraordinarily disruptive to the ongoing work the Forest Service and their contractors are in the middle of performing. And, I might add, what all this does is it makes it more expensive in the future and makes it less likely that we are going to get the important prevention work that is so necessary.

In our part of the world, I think it is fair to say that westerners are coming to consider that the Forest Service charged with managing the Nation's forests for multiple uses and users has really become something that more appropriately should be called the U.S. Fire Service, because in effect that is what this agency is month after month using more of its resources on.

What I was told in Portland last Saturday, having visited rural Oregon on Friday and Portland on Saturday--the specialists in Portland on Saturday told me that the fire season is 70 days longer than it was until recently.

So we have this challenge of more fuel load built up on the forest floor, drier conditions, lightning strikes, and fire seasons lasting longer. That is a prescription for trouble in the rural West, and in fact that is what we are seeing.

My hope is that, as a result of the work that Senator Crapo and I and others are seeking to do, we can have more hazardous fuel treatment, more preventive work that will be effective at reducing fire risks and lowering costs.

A fire in central Oregon this year slowed to a halt when it reached treated areas outside the city of Bend. I saw that when I was in Bend looking at the difference between treated areas--this preventative kind of approach--and areas that were untreated.

A study published by Northern Arizona University's Ecological Restoration Institute concluded that treatments ``can reduce fire severity'' and ``successfully reduce fire risk to communities.''

Based on Department of the Interior and Department of Agriculture analysis, 1 percent of wildland fires represents 30 percent of firefighting costs. That is what Senator Crapo and I want to address in our bill.

What we are saying is, for that 1 percent, the 1 percent that is really driving up costs, let's handle those fires as what they are, which are natural disasters. And then, instead of raiding the prevention money to put the fires out, we will be able to cause less problems in the future because we will have the kind of preventive work that is so effective that I saw in Bend and elsewhere.

It seems to me, as we see in a lot of parts of government, there is a choice. We can spend modest sums up front on prevention in order to generate significant savings down the road. If we have $1 to spend, we ought always to try to put it in prevention and then target scarce resources to fight fires. To the greatest extent possible, we must target disaster money on those infernos that are bigger and hotter and more damaging and cost about 30 percent of the overall budget.

In summary, the legislation that Senator Crapo and I and others are pursuing would fund the true catastrophic fire events under separate natural disaster programs. Routine wildland firefighting costs would be funded through the normal budget and appropriations process.

Oversight hearings, letters, and numerous discussions with the administration and colleagues helped to produce the approach that Chairman Mikulski has included. I remember not long ago being in Idaho, being hosted by our colleagues Senator Crapo and Senator Risch. We had Members from across the political spectrum. Congressman Labrador from the other body was there. We had progressive Members. This is something that is common sense. It just makes sense to make sure that the small number of

fires, these infernos which are dominating our news accounts, that we handle them from the natural disaster fund. Then let's put most of the money and allow the Forest Service, BLM, and professionals to put their focus and their resources where we can prevent as much of the problem as possible--and prevent it early on.

That is the point of our legislation. We are very grateful to Chairman Mikulski for her effort. I thank Senator Crapo for his support. He and I have been at this with Senator Risch, Senator Merkley, Senator Cantwell, Senator Murray, Senator Bennet--Western Senators and others such as Senator Baldwin and Manchin that understand the importance of national forests. Senator Udall has been doing important work on this in the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. All of the Western Senators are of like mind here. Chair Mikulski recognizes what we are looking at and the prospect that we would be leaving this week without this change to make better use of our resources. I call it legislative malpractice because we have an opportunity in a bipartisan way to make a real difference here. If our colleagues are outside the West, I would say it is a chance to spend scarce dollars more effectively. For us in the West, it is nothing short of survival.

Mr. President, I yield the floor

Mr. President, in 1974, 40 years ago this month, Turkish troops invaded the Republic of Cyprus. By August they had taken control of more than one-third of the island. Turkey's invasion had immediate consequences, such as the confiscation of property and the displacement of Greek and Turkish Cypriots alike.

The invasion has also had more enduring consequences--consequences that are still felt today. The so-called green line, a demilitarized United Nations buffer zone, still cuts a jagged path across the island, dividing one part of the country from the other. It even bisects the capital city of Nicosia. In 1983, Turkish Cypriots declared a separate country in the northern third of Cyprus--a country recognized to this day by Turkey alone.

Vice President Joe Biden visited Cyprus in May, and he spoke of being called the White House optimist for his belief that the best days are yet to come. Well, by that standard, my colleagues here must think me the Senate optimist. But I really do believe that the future is bright for Cyprus and that most Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots want to put aside decades of division and move forward together.

I was pleased to read that leaders issued a joint declaration in February calling the status quo ``unacceptable'', and I am encouraged by the resumption of high-level negotiations on a comprehensive settlement. I think the United States, with its deep ties to Cyprus and Turkey, can play a productive role in facilitating these discussions. I also urge the Government of Turkey to step up and be a constructive partner throughout this process.

It has been my experience that intractable problems rarely have simple or easy solutions, so I am not under any illusions about this. But I have seen what folks can accomplish when they set ideology aside, and I remain a believer in a just settlement that brings an end to 40 years of division and reunites Cyprus.

Mr. President, I would like to honor the centennial of a unique historical landmark in my home State. The Pittock Mansion in Portland, OR, educates Oregonians and tourists from around the world about the city's history and the legacy of the family who once owned it.

When Henry Pittock completed construction of the large 46-room house in the West Hills of Portland in 1914, there was nothing like it in the region--and arguably, there still isn't. Henry came to Oregon by covered wagon with little in his pocket but grew to become a respected local businessman and the owner of our State newspaper, the Oregonian. His wife Georgiana was a philanthropist who was known for serving the needs of the elderly, women and children, and for her famous rose garden. Georgiana often hosted garden parties where she would showcase her famous roses and is credited with kick-starting the first Portland Rose Society and the tradition of the Portland Rose Festival, which now draws thousands of people from around the world each summer.

When Henry and Georgiana built their mansion, they hired Oregon craftsman and artisans and used northwest materials, helping their community and contributing to the bourgeoning city in a variety of ways. They lived a long, happy life together and had 6 children and 18 grandchildren, including some who lived in the mansion up until it was put up for sale in 1958.

Today, the mansion serves as a historical museum. The interior of the house and the surrounding property are publicly owned and preserved by dedicated staff and volunteers. Tourists, locals, and schoolchildren are often seen wandering through the home and along the paths around the large property learning about the historic significance of the mansion and of Portland. The house represents an era of growth that was occurring throughout the Pacific Northwest at the time of its construction.

For its symbolism, history, and meaning, today we recognize the Pittock Mansion's Centennial Year. May it continue to serve as a place to learn and enjoy for many years to come.