Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to sponsor two important pieces of legislation. My colleagues in this body are all aware of the challenges that American manufacturers struggle with in the global market. A particular challenge faces producers of renewable energy technology. Not only do these producers compete against decades of government subsidies provided to the oil and gas industry, these manufacturers are increasingly competing against China's unfair trade practices.

As my colleagues know, the record is clear that China is cheating. China is illegally subsidizing their producers of solar and wind energy technology. China is enabling solar panels and wind energy property to be sold in the U.S. at below market value due to the government subsidies they are provided by China.

The Department of Commerce is investigating these practices. The Department has already found specific practices employed by China that are against international trade rules. As a result the government will soon assign antidumping and countervailing duties on solar panels, for example, as they have been determined by the Department of Commerce to be unfairly traded.

The first measure that I sponsored today is very simple. The Investment Tax Credit Integrity Act, S. 3610, would simply say for purposes of the tax credit that American buyers of solar panels and other qualifying renewable energy can claim, taxpayers cannot use the tax credit to offset the antidumping and countervailing duties that are assigned to this merchandise. As you know, the rate of these duties is designed to remedy the unfair trade that was exposed; it would be counterproductive to allow the Investment Tax Credit to undermine the purpose of these duties.

The second measure that I filed today, S. 3611, is equally important. The Buy Fairly Traded Goods Act says that federal agencies should not, with taxpayer money, buy merchandise, like Chinese subsidized solar panels, that are subject to U.S. duties assigned to remedy the unfair trade practices. Taxpayer money should not be used to buy property that the Department of Commerce has determined is unfairly traded and which is shown to harm U.S. manufacturers. This measure is written so there may be limited exceptions in the event of a national security issue, and it is crafted to comply with America's international trade obligations. Importantly, this bill also instructs federal agencies to use their contracting power to ensure that developers who are producing renewable energy for use by the federal government do not buy property for that purpose that is subject to trade remedies.

I am pleased that Senator Merkley has joined me in sponsoring these proposals. Mr. Merkley has a strong record for standing up for American businesses and the workers who are struggling during these difficult times due to the unscrupulous trade practices employed by the People's Republic of China.

Mr. President, today a part of the Pacific Northwest is coming to Washington, DC. Thanks to the immensely creative and dedicated work of artist Rick Bartow and his team, two wooden pole sculptures will be placed in the garden of the Smithsonian National Museum of the American Indian. Atop one pole sits a bear and the other pole a raven, representing the healer and the rascal, respectively. The Bear pole is 27 feet tall, and the Raven pole, 23 feet tall. The poles--collectively titled ``We Were Always Here''--will face the Washington Monument and overlook the National Mall.

The artist behind this project, Rick Bartow, is a Native American of Wiyot and Yurok heritage who was born in Newport, OR. His previous work has been shown throughout the world, including his Cedar Mill Pole, which was displayed at the White House in 1997. When you hear Mr. Bartow discuss his art, his process, and the world around him, you realize that you are listening to one of the country's foremost artistic minds.

That talent is clearly showcased in ``We Were Always Here.'' The level of detail, history, and meaning in each pole is truly amazing. The poles are based on Native beliefs, but the message and meaning behind them are universal. For example, Mr. Bartow explains that the repeated horizontal patterns on each pole, ``symbolize successive waves, generations following generations, an accumulation of wisdom and knowledge.'' This idea that we can learn from our ancestors and from history is critical to the progress of our Nation and is one that is beautifully captured through these sculpture poles.

Thanks to the tireless efforts of Mr. Bartow and his team, folks visiting the Smithsonian National Museum of the American Indian or walking the National Mall will now be able to look

upon these sculptures and gain an understanding of the important role the Native American community has in Oregon and throughout our country.

It is important to note that it is not only Oregon that is represented in these poles, but rather the Pacific Northwest. The two trees from which they are carved--a 1200 and 500 year old cedar--are from our northern neighbors, Washington State, and artists from around the area contributed in the creation of these sculptures. This sense of community is a staple of the Pacific Northwest and one that is represented in ``We Were Always Here''.

I want to commend Mr. Bartow and his team for their great work, and I encourage everyone to get out and experience ``We Were Always Here'' by visiting the American Indian Museum or The National Mall.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Fair Trade in Seafood Act.

Right now, our country is proud to be a world leader in the fishing and seafood processing industries. We rank among the world's top five exporters of seafood, and its largest importer. However, the U.S. seafood industry faces many challenges on the global stage from unfair competition. The Congress should be doing everything it can to make sure we retain our status as global leader. That is why I am introducing the Fair Trade in Seafood Act. This bill will establish this issue as a Principal Negotiating Objective of the United States in the ongoing Trans-Pacific Partnership and World Trade Organization talks.

Why is this bill important? According to the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization, 85 percent of the world's fisheries are fully exploited, overexploited, depleted, or recovering from depletion--the highest percentage since the Food and Agricultural Organization began keeping records.

Many governments continue to provide significant subsidies that push their fleets to fish longer, more intensively, and farther away than otherwise would be possible. These destructive fisheries subsidies are estimated to be at least $16 billion annually, an amount equivalent to approximately 20 percent of the value of the world catch. The detrimental effects of these illegal subsidies are so significant that eliminating them is the single greatest action that can be taken to protect the world's oceans.

In contrast to these nefarious actors, the U.S. does not just talk about the importance of sustainable fishing practices and marine conservation. We are practicing what we preach. That means enforcing regulations and changing old, counterproductive, destructive habits. Our seafood industry is stronger because of it. At the same time, our market is open. In my view, this is the way every country ought to run its seafood industry. Our foreign trading partners, as I mentioned, often support practices that can cause long-term harm to marine habitat. In addition, our trading partners put up trade barriers that prevent sustainably caught U.S. seafood from reaching foreign consumers. These are practices that skew the playing field in a competitive marketplace. They skew the playing field against American fishers and give foreign competitors a huge advantage in an industry that depends on global trade. Forty percent of global fishery products are traded internationally, and seafood is more globally sourced than coffee, rice, and tea combined.

These harmful foreign trade barriers and practices that encourage overfishing are top priorities that need to be addressed. These foreign trade barriers harm our country's ability to create good-paying jobs. Preserving the wealth of the world's marine environment is of paramount importance. The U.S. seafood industry represents a major portion of our economy, employing over 1.5 million workers in the commercial sector alone. The commercial seafood industry has a significant presence in over 23 States and is an industry and, in fact, a way of life, a way of life that binds communities and stitches together the regions of our country. The seafood sector employs more people than the mining or oil industries.

It is also a foundation of our economy because, without fish, there are no jobs. Preserving the wealth of our oceans and rivers is an economic imperative as much as a moral one. That is why I urge my colleagues to cosponsor the Fair Trade in Seafood Act.

In short, this Act will codify an official trade negotiating objective of the United States with respect to government fisheries subsidies. More specifically, the negotiating objective will be to eliminate fisheries subsidies provided by governments that unfairly destroy markets to the detriment of the United States commercial fishing interests and that perpetuate unsustainable fishing practices. The bill aims to ensure that any commitments with respect to such subsidies are enforceable under appropriate trade laws. This negotiating objective will apply to any trade agreement that includes any negotiations relating to the elimination or reduction of government fisheries subsidies.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Fair Trade in Seafood Act.

Right now, our country is proud to be a world leader in the fishing and seafood processing industries. We rank among the world's top five exporters of seafood, and its largest importer. However, the U.S. seafood industry faces many challenges on the global stage from unfair competition. The Congress should be doing everything it can to make sure we retain our status as global leader. That is why I am introducing the Fair Trade in Seafood Act. This bill will establish this issue as a Principal Negotiating Objective of the United States in the ongoing Trans-Pacific Partnership and World Trade Organization talks.

Why is this bill important? According to the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization, 85 percent of the world's fisheries are fully exploited, overexploited, depleted, or recovering from depletion--the highest percentage since the Food and Agricultural Organization began keeping records.

Many governments continue to provide significant subsidies that push their fleets to fish longer, more intensively, and farther away than otherwise would be possible. These destructive fisheries subsidies are estimated to be at least $16 billion annually, an amount equivalent to approximately 20 percent of the value of the world catch. The detrimental effects of these illegal subsidies are so significant that eliminating them is the single greatest action that can be taken to protect the world's oceans.

In contrast to these nefarious actors, the U.S. does not just talk about the importance of sustainable fishing practices and marine conservation. We are practicing what we preach. That means enforcing regulations and changing old, counterproductive, destructive habits. Our seafood industry is stronger because of it. At the same time, our market is open. In my view, this is the way every country ought to run its seafood industry. Our foreign trading partners, as I mentioned, often support practices that can cause long-term harm to marine habitat. In addition, our trading partners put up trade barriers that prevent sustainably caught U.S. seafood from reaching foreign consumers. These are practices that skew the playing field in a competitive marketplace. They skew the playing field against American fishers and give foreign competitors a huge advantage in an industry that depends on global trade. Forty percent of global fishery products are traded internationally, and seafood is more globally sourced than coffee, rice, and tea combined.

These harmful foreign trade barriers and practices that encourage overfishing are top priorities that need to be addressed. These foreign trade barriers harm our country's ability to create good-paying jobs. Preserving the wealth of the world's marine environment is of paramount importance. The U.S. seafood industry represents a major portion of our economy, employing over 1.5 million workers in the commercial sector alone. The commercial seafood industry has a significant presence in over 23 States and is an industry and, in fact, a way of life, a way of life that binds communities and stitches together the regions of our country. The seafood sector employs more people than the mining or oil industries.

It is also a foundation of our economy because, without fish, there are no jobs. Preserving the wealth of our oceans and rivers is an economic imperative as much as a moral one. That is why I urge my colleagues to cosponsor the Fair Trade in Seafood Act.

In short, this Act will codify an official trade negotiating objective of the United States with respect to government fisheries subsidies. More specifically, the negotiating objective will be to eliminate fisheries subsidies provided by governments that unfairly destroy markets to the detriment of the United States commercial fishing interests and that perpetuate unsustainable fishing practices. The bill aims to ensure that any commitments with respect to such subsidies are enforceable under appropriate trade laws. This negotiating objective will apply to any trade agreement that includes any negotiations relating to the elimination or reduction of government fisheries subsidies.

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

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

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

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

Mr. President, I wish to follow on the very important remarks made by our colleague, Senator Murray. As a result of the debate we have had in Washington, DC, I knew there was a significant problem, but until we held these forums across our State--we essentially went into every corner of Oregon--it really didn't come home to me how serious a problem this is.

I wish to highlight for a moment or two this point I got into with Senator Murray with respect to rural areas, some of the stories. For example, I was told about a woman in central Oregon who essentially, faced with a very abusive relationship, spent the evening trying to hide out in ditches in the community. She would just run from ditch to ditch. Of course, a person gets pretty banged up and bruised when they do something like that, but she hid out in ditches through the night in order to avoid her abuser.

But then it came to morning time and she wanted to get out. She wanted to get to the Safety Net program, which is a wonderful shelter in her area. But the fact was the only way to get out was to ask for a ride from the one person who had a vehicle in the community, and that was the person who abused her in the first place. So, literally, in a rural community--and I heard this account just recently--she had nowhere to turn. That is why I characterize the Violence Against Women Act as--especially for rural women--the last line of defense between them and the abuser.

In another community--I know my colleague, the Presiding Officer, will identify with this, and I enjoyed going to West Virginia and the like--in a rural community in the eastern part of our State, it was described to me that there was no transportation out of the community. There was no transportation at all. The woman involved was going to literally have to stay there and face continual abuse. The one vehicle in the community was a fishing shuttle.

I am sure the Senator from West Virginia identifies with that. It is something we have in our rural communities--a vehicle that takes folks fishing.

The owner of the fishing shuttle said: I am going to be the one to take this woman to safety. I don't need to be reimbursed. I don't need to have some kind of government program or something. I am going to do it because it is right.

That is how that woman in a rural community escaped her abuser. She got out. She got free. She was able to shake out of the clutches of the abuser because the fellow who owned the fishing shuttle stuck up for her.

But I think this is Senator Murray's point: I do not think we can accept that all across the country we are going to have fishing shuttles available in order to rescue women who are subject to this kind of abuse. I think that is pretty farfetched, and the good hearts of Oregonians came through in that particular situation, but we have to reenact this program.

The fact is, Mr. President and colleagues, this has been the law of the land for more than a decade. There has not been a shred of partisanship in it. It is not about ideology. It is about protecting women from brutality. I had thought, frankly, we had gotten over some of the arguments against this legislation that had been trotted out in the past.

For example, it was often said in the past: Well, maybe these abuse cases are not abuse. Maybe they are just kind of family matters. They are going to get settled when the family kind of calms down. Maybe somebody got upset about something, and then in a day or so everything is going to go back to normal.

That is not the case. This is about repeated instances of violence, repeated instances of violence you cannot slough off as a family difference of opinion. It is a crime. It is brutal violence. That is why we need this legislation, and we need it reauthorized.

I think it is also especially important, given some of the budget cuts we have seen that are particularly hitting small communities like a wrecking ball. For example, in Josephine County--a rural part of our State--they are in the position where, when a subpoena goes out, they essentially do not have the resources to follow it up. In other words, the subpoena is used to, in effect, set in motion the law enforcement process to bring the abuser to justice, and I was told by the key law enforcement officials in Josephine County--in a community forum I held in Medford, OR, for folks from the southwestern

part of the State--that they literally do not have the resources to follow up on how to ensure that abuser is brought to justice.

I would make a couple of additional points. I see colleagues on the floor waiting to speak.

I also want to talk about the costs that are associated with this. You have two kinds of costs. First, you have direct health care costs that stem from the violence you see perpetrated against women, and then also you have costs in terms of lost productivity. At a time when we are getting hit very hard by unemployment--and we know we are in a productivity race with Asia and India and China and other countries--we cannot afford the costs, the health care costs of the violence against women that ends up having women land in hospital emergency rooms and the like, nor can we allow this lost productivity at a time when we are pushing so hard to create more good-paying jobs.

The protection that is offered through the Violence Against Women Act saves my home State of Oregon now millions of dollars through its key provisions. Safety from domestic violence would save Oregon more than $35 million per year in direct health care costs. Our State loses approximately $9.3 million per year in lost productivity from paid work as a result of domestic violence. The fact is, the preventive services offered by the Violence Against Women Act saves money, as does the very important work that is done by victim services.

The study of 278 victims in my home town of Portland who received domestic violence and housing assistance found that those services resulted in more than $610,000 in savings during the first 6 months. So there are savings in terms of assistance, whether it is housing or counseling. Emergency medical care utilization is reduced as a result of emergency services, safety net services being available. Whether it is one measure or another, from a financial standpoint, reauthorizing the violence against women legislation makes sense.

But at the end of the day, while the financial savings are substantial, it seems to me the Violence Against Women Act is about restoring dignity to women who have been abused in our country. No woman in the United States should be subject to the kind of physical abuse I have documented in cases coming from Oregon and that Senator Murray has described this morning. They strip our people--women in this country--of their dignity and their confidence and their ability, after they shake free from their abuser, to get on and have the kind of productive life they want for themselves and their family.

Ultimately, this is about dignity. It is about doing what is right. This legislation has been on the books for more than a decade. There is no reason--none whatever--that this legislation is not passed overwhelmingly on a bipartisan, bicameral basis. I am going to do everything I can here on the floor of the Senate talking with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to make sure this legislation is reauthorized. Because what I saw during these community forums in my home State, from small towns across Oregon, should not happen in my State, it should not happen anywhere, because it is not right, and the Senate can take action to stop it.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss military medical training, and specifically, the use of live animals in trauma training.

Many Americans may be unaware that the Military still uses live pigs and goats in combat trauma training courses to train military personnel to treat battlefield injuries. This is an outdated and inefficient training method that does not fully prepare doctors and medics to treat wounded service members.

For many years, medical simulation has not been able to provide a training experience superior to animal-based live tissue training, but the newest generation of simulators can do just that. These simulators are based on human anatomy and recreate the feeling, the sights, and the sounds of treating a wounded service member.

In current military training, live pigs and goats are anesthetized while trainees perform critical procedures on them. In some cases, the animals are shot in the face or have limbs amputated while the trainees are instructed to keep them alive as long as possible. This is inhumane, but more importantly, it is like comparing apples and oranges--this does not teach service members how to treat a human soldier, only how to operate on a goat or pig. And while live tissue training has some value in getting trainees accustomed to the sight of blood, medical simulation can now do the same, and has become the new gold standard.

In civilian medical training courses, which teach many of the same procedures as the military, simulators have almost universally replaced the use of live animals. The reason for this is simple; to learn how to treat human injuries, you must learn on human anatomy. Medical simulation can now replicate that anatomy while providing the emotional and psychological pressure of working on a living, wounded soldier.

Let me say that I applaud the investments that the Department of Defense has made in the area of simulation. No one has invested more in simulation technology than the Military. But the problem that I see is that despite millions of dollars in investments, simulator technology is not being fully utilized.

Speaking of costs, in addition to providing superior training and reducing animal suffering, a move away from live tissue training would save taxpayer dollars. Due to the many hidden costs of animal use, such as housing and feeding the animals, purchasing drugs for euthanasia and anesthesia, and keeping a veterinarian on staff, simulation can offer a better training experience at a lower cost.

But at the end of the day this is about providing the best possible training for our troops, because in military medicine the difference between the best training and the next best can literally mean the difference between life and death.

For these reasons I introduced today the Battlefield Excellence through Superior Training Practices, or BEST Practices Act. This legislation lays out a timeline for the Department of Defense to develop and fully implement innovative simulator technology in medical training, and to phase out live tissue training on animals in the process.

I want to note that I designed this legislation with a specific waiver authority for the Secretary of Defense, so that if there is a specific procedure that can only be best taught with live tissue use, that option is not removed. But the BEST Practices Act is primarily designed to engage the Pentagon to embrace this technology, continue further development, and incorporate this technology in military training in all cases where simulators provide the best result.

Just as we have seen with other technologies, the advancements in medical simulation are increasing at an exponential rate. The capabilities currently in place and under development are truly amazing. The BEST Practices Act capitalizes on these present and future capabilities, and uses them to save the lives of our service members.

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss military medical training, and specifically, the use of live animals in trauma training.

Many Americans may be unaware that the Military still uses live pigs and goats in combat trauma training courses to train military personnel to treat battlefield injuries. This is an outdated and inefficient training method that does not fully prepare doctors and medics to treat wounded service members.

For many years, medical simulation has not been able to provide a training experience superior to animal-based live tissue training, but the newest generation of simulators can do just that. These simulators are based on human anatomy and recreate the feeling, the sights, and the sounds of treating a wounded service member.

In current military training, live pigs and goats are anesthetized while trainees perform critical procedures on them. In some cases, the animals are shot in the face or have limbs amputated while the trainees are instructed to keep them alive as long as possible. This is inhumane, but more importantly, it is like comparing apples and oranges--this does not teach service members how to treat a human soldier, only how to operate on a goat or pig. And while live tissue training has some value in getting trainees accustomed to the sight of blood, medical simulation can now do the same, and has become the new gold standard.

In civilian medical training courses, which teach many of the same procedures as the military, simulators have almost universally replaced the use of live animals. The reason for this is simple; to learn how to treat human injuries, you must learn on human anatomy. Medical simulation can now replicate that anatomy while providing the emotional and psychological pressure of working on a living, wounded soldier.

Let me say that I applaud the investments that the Department of Defense has made in the area of simulation. No one has invested more in simulation technology than the Military. But the problem that I see is that despite millions of dollars in investments, simulator technology is not being fully utilized.

Speaking of costs, in addition to providing superior training and reducing animal suffering, a move away from live tissue training would save taxpayer dollars. Due to the many hidden costs of animal use, such as housing and feeding the animals, purchasing drugs for euthanasia and anesthesia, and keeping a veterinarian on staff, simulation can offer a better training experience at a lower cost.

But at the end of the day this is about providing the best possible training for our troops, because in military medicine the difference between the best training and the next best can literally mean the difference between life and death.

For these reasons I introduced today the Battlefield Excellence through Superior Training Practices, or BEST Practices Act. This legislation lays out a timeline for the Department of Defense to develop and fully implement innovative simulator technology in medical training, and to phase out live tissue training on animals in the process.

I want to note that I designed this legislation with a specific waiver authority for the Secretary of Defense, so that if there is a specific procedure that can only be best taught with live tissue use, that option is not removed. But the BEST Practices Act is primarily designed to engage the Pentagon to embrace this technology, continue further development, and incorporate this technology in military training in all cases where simulators provide the best result.

Just as we have seen with other technologies, the advancements in medical simulation are increasing at an exponential rate. The capabilities currently in place and under development are truly amazing. The BEST Practices Act capitalizes on these present and future capabilities, and uses them to save the lives of our service members.

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the critical need in today's health care workforce for additional training related to palliative care. Palliative care is an interdisciplinary model of care focused on relieving the pain, stress and other debilitating symptoms of serious illness, such as cancer, cardiac disease, respiratory disease, kidney failure, Alzheimer's, AIDS, ALS, and MS. Its goal is to relieve suffering and provide the best possible quality of life for patients and their families.

Many people mistakenly believe that palliative care is only beneficial when a cure is not possible. Actually, palliative care is not dependent on a life-limiting prognosis and may actually help individuals recover by relieving symptoms--such as pain, anxiety or loss of appetite--while they are undergoing sometimes difficult medical treatments or procedures, such as surgery or chemotherapy. Palliative care is provided by a team of doctors, nurses, social workers, and other specialists who work with a patient's other health care providers to provide an extra layer of support, including assistance with difficult medical decision-making and coordination of care among specialists. Palliative care is appropriate for people of any age and at any stage in an illness, whether that illness is curable, chronic or life-threatening.

There is a specific type of palliative care, called hospice, for people for whom a cure is no longer possible and who likely have 6 months or less to live. Hospice care can be provided at one's home, a hospice facility, a hospital or a nursing home. Hospice care is about giving patients control, dignity and comfort so they have the best possible quality of life during the time they have. Hospice care also provides support and grief therapy for loved ones whose struggles are often cast aside or forgotten during treatment.

A growing evidence base has demonstrated that palliative care, including hospice, improves quality, controls cost and enhances patient and family satisfaction for the rapidly expanding population of individuals with serious or life-threatening illness. Palliative care may also prolong the lives of some seriously ill patients.

Over the last 10 years, the number of hospital-based palliative care programs has more than doubled due to the increasing number of Americans living with serious, complex and chronic illnesses and the realities of the care responsibilities faced by their families. Studies suggest that in states with more hospital-based palliative care programs, patients are less likely to die in the hospital, are likely to spend fewer days in the ICU, have better pain management and higher satisfaction with their health care.

As usual, Oregon is ahead of the curve and I am proud to say that in a 2011 report ranking states on their citizens' access to hospital- based palliative care programs, Oregon was among the seven states who earned an ``A'' rating, with 88 percent of Oregon hospitals offering palliative care.

Unfortunately, many seriously ill patients and their families lack the access available to Oregonians. Palliative care is a relatively new medical specialty and more must be done to ensure an adequate, well- trained palliative care workforce is available to provide comprehensive symptom management, intensive communication and a level of care coordination that addresses the episodic and long-term nature of serious, chronic illness. I believe that, with Federal support, we can help address the workforce gap between those currently practicing in palliative care and hospice and the number of health care professionals required to care for this expanding patient population That is why today I am introducing the Palliative Care and Hospice Education and Training Act or PCHETA. This authorizing legislation focuses on three key areas to grow the palliative care and hospice workforce.

Education centers to expand interdisciplinary training in palliative and hospice care.

Training of physicians who plan to teach palliative medicine and fellowships to encourage re-training for mid-career physicians, and academic career awards and career incentive awards to support physicians and other health care providers who provide palliative and hospice care training.

With this legislation, patients and families who are facing serious or life-threatening illness will have access to the high-quality palliative care and hospice services that can maximize their quality of life. I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the critical need in today's health care workforce for additional training related to palliative care. Palliative care is an interdisciplinary model of care focused on relieving the pain, stress and other debilitating symptoms of serious illness, such as cancer, cardiac disease, respiratory disease, kidney failure, Alzheimer's, AIDS, ALS, and MS. Its goal is to relieve suffering and provide the best possible quality of life for patients and their families.

Many people mistakenly believe that palliative care is only beneficial when a cure is not possible. Actually, palliative care is not dependent on a life-limiting prognosis and may actually help individuals recover by relieving symptoms--such as pain, anxiety or loss of appetite--while they are undergoing sometimes difficult medical treatments or procedures, such as surgery or chemotherapy. Palliative care is provided by a team of doctors, nurses, social workers, and other specialists who work with a patient's other health care providers to provide an extra layer of support, including assistance with difficult medical decision-making and coordination of care among specialists. Palliative care is appropriate for people of any age and at any stage in an illness, whether that illness is curable, chronic or life-threatening.

There is a specific type of palliative care, called hospice, for people for whom a cure is no longer possible and who likely have 6 months or less to live. Hospice care can be provided at one's home, a hospice facility, a hospital or a nursing home. Hospice care is about giving patients control, dignity and comfort so they have the best possible quality of life during the time they have. Hospice care also provides support and grief therapy for loved ones whose struggles are often cast aside or forgotten during treatment.

A growing evidence base has demonstrated that palliative care, including hospice, improves quality, controls cost and enhances patient and family satisfaction for the rapidly expanding population of individuals with serious or life-threatening illness. Palliative care may also prolong the lives of some seriously ill patients.

Over the last 10 years, the number of hospital-based palliative care programs has more than doubled due to the increasing number of Americans living with serious, complex and chronic illnesses and the realities of the care responsibilities faced by their families. Studies suggest that in states with more hospital-based palliative care programs, patients are less likely to die in the hospital, are likely to spend fewer days in the ICU, have better pain management and higher satisfaction with their health care.

As usual, Oregon is ahead of the curve and I am proud to say that in a 2011 report ranking states on their citizens' access to hospital- based palliative care programs, Oregon was among the seven states who earned an ``A'' rating, with 88 percent of Oregon hospitals offering palliative care.

Unfortunately, many seriously ill patients and their families lack the access available to Oregonians. Palliative care is a relatively new medical specialty and more must be done to ensure an adequate, well- trained palliative care workforce is available to provide comprehensive symptom management, intensive communication and a level of care coordination that addresses the episodic and long-term nature of serious, chronic illness. I believe that, with Federal support, we can help address the workforce gap between those currently practicing in palliative care and hospice and the number of health care professionals required to care for this expanding patient population That is why today I am introducing the Palliative Care and Hospice Education and Training Act or PCHETA. This authorizing legislation focuses on three key areas to grow the palliative care and hospice workforce.

Education centers to expand interdisciplinary training in palliative and hospice care.

Training of physicians who plan to teach palliative medicine and fellowships to encourage re-training for mid-career physicians, and academic career awards and career incentive awards to support physicians and other health care providers who provide palliative and hospice care training.

With this legislation, patients and families who are facing serious or life-threatening illness will have access to the high-quality palliative care and hospice services that can maximize their quality of life. I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort.

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

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

Mr. President, I am very pleased that the Senate today passed the Farm bill. This is bipartisan legislation that is critical to all Americans--from the farmers who grow our food, to the consumers who purchase that food, to kids who get school lunches, and to the neediest in our Nation who deserve access to adequate nutrition. I especially want to commend Senator Stabenow and Senator Roberts for their yeoman bipartisan work to craft this important legislation.

As Senator Stabenow has so eloquently put it time and again, this bill is a jobs bill. One in every 12 American jobs is tied to agriculture and this legislation represents an opportunity to create more jobs.

In my home State of Oregon, agriculture is now more than a $5 billion a year industry and it reflects a wide array of crops, mirroring the diversity in America's agriculture.

As I like to say, Oregonians do a lot of thing well, but what we do best is

grow things and add value to those things. This bill has a lot in it to help Oregonians do that even better and in turn create more opportunities to sell those products better locally, nationally and abroad.

I was particularly pleased to have been successful in adding two amendments to the Farm bill. These are amendments to make it easier to provide healthier foods for children in schools and to help address the problem of hunger in our country.

One of my amendments would for the first time test out direct farm- to-school approaches to provide healthier foods for children in our schools. It will do this through a competitive pilot program with at least five farm-to-school demonstration projects in all regions in the country.

While there are currently some farm to school programs in place, it's a patchwork system and, according to the Agriculture Department's own Economic Research Service, ``data and analysis of farm to school programs are scare.'' This pilot program will fill in the information void about what works and what doesn't, and it will provide a way to improve and replace ineffective programs.

What is more, under these demonstration projects, innovative States and school districts will truly be able source fresh, high-quality local produce for our schoolchildren to enjoy. No more having to purchase faraway food from a Federal warehouse hundreds of miles away when there is healthy food just down the road.

Under my amendment, schools win. Farmers win. And most importantly, our children get to enjoy the delicious, local produce that they should be able to enjoy--every day--for breakfast, or for lunch, or for a snack. That is why the American Academy of Pediatrics the Nation's pediatricians supported my no cost farm-to-school amendment.

With the adoption of this amendment, it will be easier for delicious pears, cherries, and other healthy produce, grown just a few miles down the road, to make it into our schools.

Schools and school food authorities from all over the country with innovative ideas can now begin drawing up novel plans of action to purchase fresh, local produce for their kids.

New ideas will come forth, and the existing farm-to-school infrastructure will improve as new and better distribution models begin to emerge.

I am heartened that the farm-to-school movement has truly become national in scope, as more people recognize both the health and economic benefits that derive from these efforts. My amendment will make this movement not only bigger but better.

I thank Senator Stabenow and her staff for working with me on this amendment and helping me get this passed.

Fewer folks will be hungry thanks to the Senate's passage of my microloan for gleaners amendment.

These gleaners are mostly volunteers who collect food from grocery stores, restaurants, and farms--food that would otherwise be wasted-- and distribute it to agencies or nonprofit organizations that feed it to the hungry.

These good Samaritans who save food from being tossed into landfills or burned in incinerators will finally be able to access the capital they deserve to expand and improve their operations.

At a time when food waste is the single largest category of waste in our local landfills--more than 34 million tons of food, even a portion of that wasted food could feed a lot of people. By redistributing food that would otherwise go to waste to the hungry--again, without spending extra taxpayer money--we can do more to ensure that this unwanted food is used to tackle hunger in America.

Instead of burning this food in incinerators, gleaners can help more people in need burn this food as calories.

This is just one more step in the right direction to help alleviate food insecurity in our country.

I again thank Senator Stabenow and her staff for their assistance in getting this amendment passed. It will provide real help to a group of selfless folks that are trying to bring some commonsense solutions to the hunger crisis.

As happy as I was to get the Farm Bill passed and get these amendments included, an opportunity to encourage healthier eating by recipients of SNAP benefits--what was previously known as food stamps-- was unfortunately not able to come up for a vote.

This is disappointing. Not disappointing for me, but for the millions of SNAP beneficiaries, public health officials, and others who know we can do better to encourage healthier eating and increase consumption of healthy fruits and vegetables.

The existing waiver authority for SNAP is extremely restrictive and has resulted in a number of innovative State proposals being denied. It makes no sense to continue to stifle innovation and progress when it comes to incentivizing beneficiaries to eat healthier.

I will continue to push for ways to promote healthier eating through the SNAP program, given that it will improve public health, increase the consumption of healthy food, boost local farmers' incomes, and give taxpayers the confidence that their tax dollars are being spent on food that is really food.

I was also very disappointed that my amendment to legalize industrial hemp was also not granted a vote.

I firmly believe that American farmers should not be denied an opportunity to grow and sell a legitimate crop simply because it resembles an illegal one.

I fought for an amendment that would have recognized industrial hemp as a legitimate crop, but since doing so requires amending the Controlled Substances Act it was considered non-germane to the current debate and could not be brought up for a vote.

However, just my raising this issue has sparked a growing awareness of exactly how ridiculous the U.S.'s ban on industrial hemp is and I feel that important progress was made in advancing this dialogue.

I am confident that if grassroots support continues to grow and Members of Congress continue to hear from voters, then commonsense hemp legislation can move through Congress in the near future.

I plan to continue to keep fighting for this and hope to reintroduce this as a stand-alone bill.

I also want to raise concerns with language that was passed in the bill that amended the Healthy Forests Restoration Act. It is my hope that this issue will still be addressed in conference. I understand Senator Bennet made remarks expressing that same desire.

The language in the forestry title of the Farm bill amended an Act which I played a key role in helping pass originally in the Senate a decade ago.

As part of efforts to pass that legislation, which streamlined National Environmental Policy Act requirements, as well as appeals and judicial review, a carefully balanced compromise was reached. Environmental protections and clear limitations for appropriate places for the use of that authority were enacted as part of that legislation.

The language in the Farm Bill creates a sweeping new authority to use the Healthy Forest Restoration Act for areas potentially threatened with insect or disease infestations but fails to include any of the environmental protections or clear limitations in the original legislation. Additional, the way those areas that are threatened by insects and disease are defined is very broad.

I worked very hard with several of my colleagues to try to reach a compromise. It is my hope that given a little more time, we will be able to reach a compromise before a final Farm Bill becomes law.

I hope we will have a chance to perfect this language to address these concerns as the bill goes to conference.

Lastly, I want to touch the labeling of genetically modified foods.

I have always believed that consumers benefit from having more information about the food they consume, and that is why I supported an amendment offered by Senator Sanders regarding the labeling of such foods. However, I continue to believe that the most realistic way to improve consumer information about genetically modified foods is to take a national approach and I will continue to work towards that goal. That is why I cosponsored Senator Begich's legislation to ensure that genetically modified fish are labeled.

In sum, I again want to reiterate my strong support for the Farm Bill passed

in the Senate and my great pleasure at having successfully gotten two amendments into this bill.

I raised several additional issues and it is my hope that there will be continued opportunities to address these issues going forward.

I yield the floor.

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

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

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.

I call up amendment No. 2442.

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

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----

--it possible to collect and preserve edible food. I hope we accept it on a voice vote.

Mr. President, has all time expired?

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

I ask for a recorded vote.

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

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

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.

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.

Reserving the right to object----

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. 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.