This past Saturday, Shepherds Flat Wind Energy project came online in Gilliam and Morrow counties in Central Oregon.
Shepherds Flat is one of the world’s largest wind farms generating 845 megawatts of power – enough to power more than 200,000 homes. The wind farm was developed by Caithness Energy and boasts 338 wind turbines made in the U.S. by General Electric which are creating emissions-free power.
“Shepherds Flat shows all of us what renewable energy in the 21st Century looks like, with electricity flowing, real steel in the ground, real jobs, and real economic growth,” Wyden said, in a statement.
This past week, Senator Wyden travelled up to Alaska where he toured several of Alaska’s energy projects and spoke of the need for comprehensive tax reform with Alaskan Senators Lisa Murkowski and Mark Begich.
Next up Senator Wyden and Senator Begich toured the Fire Island Wind Project in Anchorage and celebrated UPS’s 105th Birthday with a tour of their planes and facilities. The trip ended with Senator Wyden and Senator Begich talking about their Bipartisian Tax Fairness and Simplification Act on the Mike Porcaro show and at a roundtable hosted by the Anchorage Economic Development Corporation.
"This has been helpful," Wyden said of the trip, his first in Alaska focused on energy issues. "Alaska has been a major energy producer for decades and it’s now in transition to new energy opportunities including natural gas and renewable energy. Senator Murkowski and Senator Begich showed me firsthand how energy independence and creating more good-paying jobs go hand in hand."
U.S. Senator Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and U.S. Representative Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) teamed up to write the Geolocation Privacy and Surveillance (GPS) Act, which is now being offered as an amendment to the Cybersecurity Act of 2012.
Currently, laws pertaining to geolocation tracking have not kept pace with technology. Judges in different jurisdictions have issued conflicting rulings about what procedures law enforcement must follow – and how much evidence is necessary – to obtain individuals’ geolocation data from private companies. This lack of clarity creates problems for law enforcement agencies and private companies, as well as uncertainty for customers.
The bipartisan legislation creates a legal framework designed to give government agencies, commercial entities and private citizens clear guidelines for when and how geolocation information can be accessed and used.
The GPS Act requires government agencies to get a probable cause warrant to obtain geolocation information in the same way that they currently get warrants for wiretaps or other types of electronic surveillance. It also requires private companies to get customer consent before sharing their customers’ information outside the normal course of business, and outlaws “cyber-stalking” by making it a crime to secretly track someone’s movements electronically
Stay Off My Cloud puts in place several privacy protections to ensure that the government stays off your personal cloud.
Many private companies contract with government agencies to provide information services to “continuously monitor” their networks and report to the federal government agencies in “real time or near real time” cyber incidents that jeopardize the “integrity, confidentiality, or availability of information or an information system.”
The amendment makes it clear that service providers need only provide information about cybersecurity incidents if they pose a threat to the government’s information. Importantly, with respect to continuous monitoring and reporting requirements, operators of government information are allowed to use processes that will protect the privacy of individual or non-government, customer specific data.
Stay Off My Cloud prohibits individuals’ private data from being accessed by the government solely because it’s stored by a company who provides information services to a government agency.
No Binding International Cyber Treaties without Senate Approval Amendment
Title VI of the Cybersecurity Act of 2012 calls upon the Secretary of State to “develop and lead Federal Government efforts to engage with other countries to advance the cyberspace objectives of the United States, including efforts to bolster an international framework of cyber norms, governance and deterrence.”
The administration had used similar language found in the Pro IP Act of 2008 to justify entering into binding international agreements on intellectual property as part of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement without the advice and consent of the Senate. Thisamendment makes it clear that nothing in the Cybersecurity Act of 2012 shall be construed to enable the president to enter the U.S. into a binding international agreement on cybersecurity without the advice and consent of the Senate.
Like so many Oregonians, Senator Wyden made the trip to the Oregon Coast to see the state’s newest piece of property – the Japanese dock that washed ashore last month near Newport – and joined Congressman Kurt Schrader in leading a meeting of fishermen, tug boat operators and steamship operators on the hazards to navigation posed by debris from last year’s tsunami in Japan.
(Note: This editorial piece was originally posted on US News & World Report as part of their Debate Club series wherein lawmakers answered the question, "Should Probable Cause Be Required for Police to Use Cell Phone Location Data?")
Before cellphones were commonplace, law enforcement's ability to track your movements was largely limited to the natural human powers of observation. As long as tracking you around the clock meant following you around the clock, it was generally safe to assume that law enforcement would only dedicate the time, energy, and resources necessary to follow you if they had a good reason. In other words, there was little risk that overreaching law enforcement would abuse its surveillance powers to track law-abiding citizens.
Things have changed.
Thanks to technological advancements, police departments no longer have to pay overtime or divert resources from other projects to find out where someone goes. Tracking suspects or law-abiding individuals is now as easy as accessing their GPS signals or asking a cellphone company for its customers' location records.
While having access to geolocation data is clearly useful for law enforcement agencies, without the resource limitations that used to discourage the government from tracking you without good reason, the limits on when and how geolocation data can be accessed are unclear. A police department, for example, might not have the resources to follow everyone who lives within a city block for a month, but without clear rules for electronic tracking there is nothing to stop it from requesting every resident's cellphone location history.
Obviously, we expect people to see us when we step out onto the street each morning, but we don't expect those people to track all of our movements over the course of days, weeks, months, or even years. A lot can be learned from our location histories, like where we go to church, what doctors we see, what political organizations we belong to, and who we spend our time with.
Earlier this year, the Supreme Court ruled that law enforcement must to get a warrant before secretly tracking an individual with an electronic monitoring device. While it seems likely that the majority of the court would agree that secretly turning someone's cellphone into a tracking device would be similarly intrusive, law enforcement shouldn't have to go all the way to the Supreme Court every time it needs direction on how it can use tracking technology.
Clear guidelines for accessing geolocation data won't just protect the privacy rights of law-abiding Americans—much like warrant requirements for wiretaps—they will make it possible for law enforcement to use geolocation tools with confidence that the evidence they gather will be admissible in court. Clear rules will also reassure cellphone companies that they can comply with government requests without violating their customers' privacy, and the justice system can create criminal penalties for stalkers who use geolocation tools to secretly track their victims.
A lot has changed since 1986, when Congress last set rules for electronic privacy. It's time for Congress to step in and set a modern standard.
Kicking off Personal Democracy Forum 2012 (known as #pdf12 on Twitter), Senator Wyden joined his OPEN Act co-author Representative Darrell Issa on stage with PDF founder Andrew Rasiej to discuss the “Internet’s New Political Power.” In the 30 minute conversation, Wyden recalled the challenges over the past two years with legislating Internet policy—evoking COICA, PIPA/SOPA, ACTA, TPP, and CISPA. He then highlighted the lessons learned on January 18th, 2012 when 15 million Americans spoke out to protect a free and open Internet, saying “the middle men got beat.” Wyden also made news when he called for the creation of a digital bill of rights when he said, “What we need is a way to measure how the voice of networks is protected and what I hope will happen out of this meeting is that we will start a grass roots drive, really a net roots drive to create a digital bill of rights for this country..that would be a way to measure and check to make sure the Internet stays free.”
And today @RonWyden sent this tweet encouraging the convocation of an open, online digital bill of rights convention.
During debate on the Farm Bill, Senator Wyden spoke on the Senate floor outlining the importance for this bill as it relates to our nation's health and security, environment and economic vitality. One in every 12 American jobs is tied to agriculture, an industry that boasted a trade surplus of $42.5 billion in 2011.
WATCH:
Remarks as prepared:
Mr. President, it is hard to overstate the importance of writing the best possible Farm Bill here in the Senate. When America desperately needs more jobs, and 1 in every 12 American jobs is tied to agriculture, this bill is an opportunity for the private sector to grow more jobs. When obesity rates are driving the American health care challenge, this bill can promote healthier eating without extra costs to taxpayers. When we are concerned about the threat to our treasured lands, air, and water, this bill is our primary conservation program. When our rural communities are especially hard hit, walking on an economic tightrope, this bill can be a lifeline.
I spent much of last week in rural Oregon. Oregonians do lots of things well, but what we do best is grow things; lots of things. Oregon grows more than 250 different crops, including everything from alfalfa seed to mint and blueberries. Several weeks ago, the Oregon Extension Service reported that agricultural sales in my home state increased more than 19 percent in 2011. Agriculture in Oregon is now more than a $5 billion industry annually, and much of this is driven by high prices for wheat, cattle, dairy products, fruits, vegetables and other specialty crops. The role agriculture plays as a lifeline for rural Oregon communities, and nationwide, is an important one. That is why last year I selected 28 Oregonians, from every corner of Oregon and across all types of agriculture, to help serve as an advisory committee on ways to improve the economic opportunities for Oregon’s producers, specifically through the Farm Bill.
From day one, this agriculture advisory committee stressed the importance of conserving agriculture related jobs during these tough economic times. There are approximately 38,000 farms in Oregon, which support roughly 234,000 jobs. That’s approximately 11 percent of the state’s employment. As much as 80 percent of the agriculture goods produced in Oregon are sold out-of-state, half of that is exported to foreign countries.
Abroad, U.S. producers are doing very well. Nationally, each $1 billion in agricultural exports is tied to approximately 8,400 American jobs. Growing overseas markets represent a way to create and sustain good paying jobs that rely on export sales. In fact, agriculture is one of the only sectors with a trade surplus, and in 2011, it boasted a surplus totaling $42.5 billion--the highest annual surplus on record. This is one of the many reasons my guiding principle has always been to: grow things here, add value to them and ship them somewhere.
Folks, nothing says that more than producers from Oregon to Florida selling their fruits and vegetables, wheat, beef, nursery crops, and other high-value products at home and abroad. When it comes to agriculture and food production, our domestic supply chain is fully integrated, which means agriculture and food exports create millions of jobs. The emerging global food markets represent bountiful opportunities for Oregon agricultural goods, and so I’m glad to see the Farm Bill continues the programs that American producers rely on to help market their goods in foreign markets.
But my agriculture committee also stressed the importance of promoting healthy nutrition here at home –including getting USDA’s recommended five fresh fruits and vegetables daily. That means from Burns, Oregon to Bangor, Maine, farm programs need to make it easier for those with low incomes to be able to eat healthier. There should never have to be a tradeoff between health and affordable food. I’m concerned the nation has arrived at the crossroads: business as usual or real change that acknowledges that the health of Americans today poses both an economic, as well as national security threat to the country. Here’s why:
In the past three decades, obesity rates have quadrupled for children ages 6 to 11. More than 40 percent of Americans are expected to be obese by 2030. The Center for Disease Control reports that in 2008 alone, the U.S. spent $147 billion on medical care related to obesity. Obesity is the top medical reason 1in 4 young people can’t join the military, and it has been identified as a threat to national security by the Department of Defense. It doesn’t have to be this way.
One opportunity for change is through Farm-to-School, and it should be expanded to foster healthy eating habits, all without costing the federal government any additional money. It should be easier for delicious pears, tasty cherries, and other healthy produce, grown just a few miles down the road, to make it into our schools. Schools from Springfield, Oregon to Savannah, Georgia currently purchase their fruits and vegetables from USDA warehouses, which may be hundreds of miles away. Many producers would like to sell their goods to local schools, and many schools would like to source their produce locally. The Farm Bill should help facilitate that. While in Oregon last week, Harry and David, an Oregon pear producer and a major employer in southern Oregon, told me they want to sell to schools down the street; however, the complex maze of federal rules and regulations, is a hassle. I plan to offer an amendment that would make it less of a hassle for producers, such as Harry and David, to sell directly to local schools, all without spending additional federal dollars.
A second opportunity to improve our nation’s health lies with SNAP, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, better known as Food Stamps. This program is currently spending over $70 billion a year with no way to know whether it is promoting good nutrition. Think of all the possible benefits to Americans, if SNAP did more to improve nutritional outcomes of its recipients. Let me be clear, I am not for cutting benefits to recipients. I understand the crucial lifeline the SNAP program provides for millions of Americans. What I am interested in doing, however, is giving states the flexibility to implement innovative healthy food SNAP programs that reward recipients for making healthy food choices so both the taxpayers and SNAP recipients get better nutritional bang for the buck. I plan to offer a SNAP waiver amendment to allow innovative states to do just that.
A third opportunity for improvement is gleaning. Historically, gleaners gathered leftover produce from the fields, but today gleaners play a crucial rule in reducing the staggering amount of food that goes to waste each year. At a time when food waste is the single largest category of waste in our local landfills—more than 34 million tons of food – we can work to ensure that this unwanted food is used to tackle hunger in America. Led by the dedicated work of local food banks, many are striving to put America’s food bounty to better use. In Portland, Oregon, the non-profit organization, Urban Gleaners, is poised to collect surplus food from local grocers, restaurants, parties, and the like and to quickly redistribute that food to organizations that serve the hungry. I applaud Urban Gleaners’ work and others like them as they endeavor to reduce waste and want. I plan to offer an amendment that will make it easier for gleaners to get the microloans needed for purchasing equipment to gather and distribute unwanted food to America’s hungry population.
To produce the healthy food needed to feed our country, we need fertile agriculture land, and conservation plays a critical role. Roughly 28 percent of Oregon’s land mass is devoted to agriculture production. Maintaining this land is crucial for its long-term productivity. To ensure future yields, Oregonians know that we need to implement conservation policies, and the Farm Bill is the principle vehicle for conservation across this country. For more than 75 years, the Farm Bill has supported infrastructure modernization and conservation projects. These projects benefit agriculture production, while also protecting wildlife habitat and stream health. Landowners, state and federal agencies, conservation groups and other partners all work together to leverage resources that provide a broad range of benefits to the community. It’s the Oregon way. Furthermore, these collaborative projects boost rural economies. Water is a precious resource in Oregon, and innovative projects to help conserve this scare resource send an economic ripple through the community. I’m pleased to see that the Farm Bill we are currently considering continues critical support for these important, and proven, conservation programs.
The time is also ripe to promote farmers’ markets and locally grown food, which will lead to greater awareness of local markets, roadside stands, and community-supported agriculture programs. I’m glad to see that this Farm Bill expands opportunities for local and regional food systems, increases access and affordability of healthy food options, and promotes healthier eating for our school children. I’m also glad it continues critical support for specialty crops. These types of investments in our kids, in our communities, are the types of initiatives that can change the trajectory of the staggering obesity statistics I just mentioned. In order to ensure their viability, however, the land required to produce these nutritious foods cannot be ignored.
America’s rural communities are hard-strapped, and agriculture is a bright spot during these tough economic times. Trade, health, and conservation each play an important role in boosting hard-pressed rural economies in Oregon, and elsewhere. Roughly 16 million American jobs are supported by the agriculture sector. In 2011, US agricultural exports totaled $136 billion—a 270 percent increase from 2000. Farmers’ markets are becoming an economic engine for locally grown food and spurring the creation of food hubs that connect farmers to schools and other community-based organizations. Conservation projects are an economic win-win for farmers, ranchers, and the communities they live in. For all of these reasons, it’s crucial that Congress understand the importance of this bill and take swift action to help the farmer, ranchers, and communities who rely on this economic boost.
I plan to offer several amendments to the Farm Bill. First, my Farm-to-School amendment would make it easier for schools to purchase locally for the breakfasts, lunches, and snacks they serve kids. My second amendment, the SNAP waiver, would provide an opportunity for states to test out ways to make the SNAP program a launchpad for healthier eating, rather than simply a conveyer belt for calories. With a waiver, states with innovation and effective ideas on how to improve nutritional outcomes could actually mobilize and put these good ideas into action. Third, I will offer a microloan amendment that would expand the eligibility for USDA operating loans to include nonprofit groups like gleaners, all while cutting down on the paperwork that too often holds up these important loans. Gleaning organizations should be eligible to receive loans that help them collect and store surplus food from local grocers, restaurants and the like and quickly redistribute that food to agencies that serve the hungry. Finally, based on Institute of Medicine recommendations, I will offer an amendment to establish an obesity task force to examine evidence on the relationship between agricultural policy, the diet of the average American, and childhood obesity and our national security. It is my belief that Congress should have the very best information available when making policy decisions and this task force will build the foundation for fact-based solutions to the obesity epidemic. I will work with my colleagues to move this important bill across the finish line because our nation’s economy, health, and environment all depend on it.
Senator Wyden spoke on the Senate floor following his introduction of legislation which addresses an urgent threat to the national forests—the lack of resources to fight serious wildfires that to date have burned more than 830,000 acres. With an aging air tanker fleet, the Forest Service already has a limited capacity to fight wildland fires, and now with two additional planes out of commission, the Service is further inhibited as they head into fire season. Wyden's bill would permit the Service to issue Federal contracts for at least 7 large aircraft for emergency wildfire suppression operations.
WATCH:
Remarks as prepared:
Mr. President, yesterday I joined with Senator Bingaman to introduce legislation to address an urgent threat to the national forests – the lack of resources to fight serious wildfires that are at this very moment burning on more than 300,000 acres. To date, already this year, more than 830,000 acres have burned.
I am alarmed that at the same time that the fires are getting bigger, the Forest Service’s air tanker fleet to fight these fires has gotten smaller. In 2006, the Forest Service had 44 large air tankers under contract in their fleet. Last week, entering another fire season, they had just 11 large air tankers under contract and ten of those averaged 50 years of age. Now, after the very tragic events of this past weekend – in which one of those air tankers crashed and its courageous pilots were killed, and in which another had a failure of its landing gear and sustained serious damage – the Forest Service is down to nine large air tankers under contract. This is a very serious problem, and a solution is long overdue. But Congress now has an opportunity to expedite the beginning of the solution. The Forest Service is finally ready to begin awarding contracts for the next generation of air tankers, consistent with their large air tanker modernization strategy.
On May 25, as is required by law, under 41 U.S.C. 3903(d), the Forest Service gave Congress a 30-day notification of its intent to award four multi-year contracts, which contain cancellation ceilings in excess of $10 million that require Congressional notification. Those four contracts will simply begin to fill the Federal Government’s need for large air tankers to fight wildfires – something which is woefully overdue. Now the 30-day waiting period is simply delaying urgently needed action . Without Congressional action, those contracts won’t be awarded until June 25. However, with hundreds of thousands of acres burning and a severely depleted capacity for sending air tankers to battle those fires, I see nothing that can be served by Congress simply sitting on its hands and waiting for those 30 days to expire. The Forest Service requested that Congress waive the requirement to wait the full 30 days to award these important contracts. The sooner the Forest Service can award these contracts, the sooner the companies that receive the awards can begin to prepare to deliver those next generation air tankers and get them out fighting fires.
I need to be clear, I do not know the details of the contracts and have no idea which of the companies that submitted bids will be the successful recipients. But I do know that the Forest Service has complied with its obligation to notify Congress. Congress has been notified with the required information and nothing further can be gained by simply letting time pass. I urge my colleagues to see the real seriousness of the fire situation facing the nation and approve this critical legislation.
At this very moment there are 11 uncontained large fires nationally, 152 new fires reported in just the last 24 hours and dire predictions about hot and dry conditions combining with strong winds, looming thunderstorms and arid lands across large parts of the landscape. These factors all contribute to a dangerous fire situation on the ground, and yet the Forest Service now has only nine air tankers to assist the hardworking fire crews on the ground. Eight of those tankers are getting to the point where they belong in museums rather than in the sky. While the Forest Service can, and should, use all possible assets – such as helicopters and innovative options like 20,000 gallon Very Large Air Tankers – and the agency will additionally likely need to call in the National Guard, the large air tankers remain a critically important tool for fire suppression. In fact, the fire fighting agencies mobilized air tankers 153% above the 10-year average in 2011. Yet these planes needed to assist on-the-ground firefighters have dwindled to the dire shortage now before us. Unfortunately this lack of resources is coming at a time when the nation’s forests are very vulnerable to fire – with an early season that is already producing record breaking fires. Fire seasons are only getting longer and more severe with more and more mega-fires. From 2000 to 2008, at least 10 states had fires of record-breaking size. The Forest Service itself indicated in its air tanker mobilization strategy that the agency will need up to 28 of these air tankers in order to adequately battle fire threats. Today I am again asking my colleagues to recognize the seriousness of this threat and let the agency proceed in awarding the new contracts as soon as possible. The legislation I am offering would enable the Agency to do just that and begin to tackle this serious problem.
Finally, I want to express my thanks to all the hard working and brave firefighters, pilots, companies and agency personnel that are tirelessly battling these fires, and I express my deepest condolences to the families, colleagues and friends of the deceased pilots. I hope that by advancing this legislation Congress will send them the message that relief is on its way.
M. President, I ask unanimous consent that my comments be printed in the Congressional Record, and I yield the floor.