Jeff Merkley

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will create jobs and lower energy bills for families and small businesses in rural communities by promoting energy-saving home renovations. I am honored to be joined in this effort by a bipartisan group of colleagues that includes Senator Shaheen, Senator Lugar, Senator Graham, Senator Johnson, and Senator Bennet of Colorado. Our colleagues in the other chamber are introducing companion legislation sponsored by Representatives Clyburn, Perriello, Whitfield, and Spratt. Our proposed Rural Energy Savings Program would assist rural electric co-operatives in offering ``on-bill'' financing to their customers. This concept offers two clear and important benefits for consumers, including homeowners and owners of commercial or industrial property. First, it addresses the challenge of the up-front cost of building renovations. Energy efficiency measures almost always make business sense in the long term, because they lower the energy bill for the family or business. But often, the family or business cannot afford the upfront cost of the renovation. By offering low-cost financing, we can let families and businesses pay for the cost of the renovation on the same time frame that they are getting savings on their energy bill. Second, we avoid complicating consumers' lives with another loan payment by offering a very simple repayment mechanism: under ``on- bill'' financing, the consumer repays the loan through a charge on their electric bill. This bill offers these benefits to Americans across the country by using existing structures in place to provide federal assistance to rural electric co-operatives. Specifically, the Rural Utilities Service will offer loans at zero percent interest to rural co-operatives, who can then offer on-bill financing to their customers at no more than three percent interest. The difference can be used to pay the local nonprofit cooperatives' overhead expenses or to establish a loan loss reserve. There are more than 900 electric co-operatives serving 42 million Americans, so we expect this program to create jobs and help lower energy bills in rural communities all over the country. For our rural communities to recover and thrive in the wake of the economic crisis, we need to put people back to work and lower families' expenses, and the Rural Energy Savings Program does both. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I rise this evening to speak about a simple amendment that would go a long way to save a lot of jobs in our timber industry and our forested communities. To give a little bit of background, the collapse of the housing market has devastated the timber industry and the many rural communities that depend on it, resulting in major job losses. Because of a fate tied to the housing industry, the timber industry is one of the hardest hit by the current recession, with timber prices at a record low. That precipitous drop in timber prices has created a unique and very threatening problem for companies that harvest timber on federally owned lands. Specifically, a lot of companies bid for contracts to harvest timber and they did so right before the housing market and then the timber market collapsed. So those companies bid. Some won contracts, and those that won those contracts won them at a very high price for the timber. They could make a profit selling that timber when they harvested it, but by the time the process was completed, the timber prices had fallen through the floor. At the current record-low timber prices, harvesting under contract would cost more than the timber is worth. So the companies would lose money by going forward, resulting in major losses and leading to layoffs and lost jobs. This takes us to an interesting point where there are two possibilities: one is a contract with the Forest Service, and one is a contract with the BLM, Bureau of Land Management. If a company is fortunate enough to have a contract with the Forest Service, they can apply for and receive an extension, giving them more time to act on the contract and harvest the timber. Given the unique circumstances we find ourselves in, that is of great value. It makes sense. It is a simple way to save jobs. But, unfortunately, if your contract is with the Bureau of Land Management--and that Bureau manages 69 million acres of forested land across our Western States, much of it prime timberland-- the same rules are not set up for companies that happen to do business with the BLM rather than the Forest Service. Their only alternative is harvesting timber at a loss and to lose the contract and lose the business altogether. This makes no sense as a policy. In Western States such as Oregon where Forest Service and BLM lands are side by side, you can find yourselves on the Forest Service land one moment and BLM land the next. It is practically arbitrary whether a company is working with an agency that can give them a commonsense extension, as the Forest Service can, or an agency that cannot give them that commonsense extension, which is the BLM. My amendment is simple. It allows companies to apply for a contract extension and authorizes the BLM to review and grant those applications so we can save those jobs. It applies the same rules to the BLM that the Forest Service already has in place. Indeed, the language of the amendment is identical to a companion bill that has already passed the House. Furthermore, the Congressional Budget Office has determined there is no significant financial impact for this bill. I have spoken to many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and I haven't found anyone who has an objection to this amendment. This is one of those commonsense opportunities to cut a little bit of redtape; a commonsense opportunity to assist companies that were caught in an unexpected trap; a commonsense opportunity to strengthen our rural resource-based companies and the jobs that go with them. So I put forward this amendment, and, as I noted, everyone I have spoken to on both sides of the aisle says it makes a lot of sense, but some objection has been placed anonymously. So I simply wish to ask that any colleague who has an objection to this effort to help the timber companies, to help our rural resource-based communities, to please come and talk with me because I am sure that whatever concern you have, I should be able to get a good answer for your concern. We have in this Chamber the opportunity to help some of the hardest hit communities with a simple amendment such as this. I hope we can seize that opportunity. That is the type of bipartisan problem-solving Americans are hoping to see in the Senate. Thank you. Thank you to my colleagues who have been so helpful in reviewing this amendment on both sides of the aisle. Thank you to my colleagues who will be helpful as we try to put this commonsense amendment in place. Thank you, Mr. President. PBGC Governance Mr. KOHL, Mr. President, I rise to talk about the importance of retirement security and the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, the Federal agency responsible for insuring the pension plans of nearly 44 million Americans. Unfortunately, this vital agency in November of 2009 reported a total deficit of nearly $22 billion. Furthermore, the PBGC said its potential exposure from financially weak companies that may not be able to honor their pension payments is currently about $168 billion, an increase of $121 billion from the prior year. The American Workers, State, and Business Relief Act includes provisions to offer limited pension funding relief to companies that provide defined benefit plans. While this relief is much needed, I am concerned about any such action that could increase the liability of the PBGC in its current state. As we found at an Aging Committee hearing last year, the agency sorely lacks the oversight and policy direction it requires. There is little doubt that an improved PBGC governance structure is necessary. The PBGC's boards consist of only three members: the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of Treasury, and the Secretary of Commerce. These three members obviously have their own agencies to run, and are doing so during an economic crisis. The Government Accountability Office has indicated for years that the PBGC board members do not have enough time or resources to provide the policy direction and oversight required by the agency. In 28 years, the full board has met only 20 times. These findings have been echoed in reports by the McKinsey & Company consulting group and by the Brookings Institution. The role of PBGC is too crucial to allow its governance to slip through the cracks. And we have seen devastating results when it has. The former PBGC Director was able to adopt a risky investment strategy just months before the market downturn and inappropriately involve himself in the bidding process, with little more than a rubberstamped approval from the board. We must ensure that these problems do not impact the ability of the agency to function going forward. I have crafted an amendment based on the PBGC Governance Improvement Act, a bill I introduced with Senators Bennet, McCaskill and Feingold, which would significantly improve the PBGC board's governance oversight structure. First and foremost, the amendment would expand the Board's membership, requiring it to meet at least four times a year, and ensuring that the board retains continuity during a change in administration. The amendment would also ensure the PBGC Advisory Council, inspector general, and general counsel have full and direct independent access to the entire board. Finally, the amendment would require the PBGC director to recuse him or herself from potential conflicts of interest, to include any involvement with the agency's technical evaluation panels. These small commonsense changes are a bare minimum needed to make sure the PBGC is secure and taxpayer's are protected. The role of the PBGC is a vital one, now more than ever. For 44 million Americans with defined benefit pension plans, PBGC is the only thing that stands between the secure retirement they have worked so hard for, and the prospect of living without the retirement income they have earned. We must get the PBGC back on track, or face the possibility of absorbing its obligations as taxpayers.

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

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to help create jobs and lower energy bills for businesses and multi-family residences. This bill would create a program called Building Star, designed to promote energy-saving commercial building renovations through rebates and low-cost financing options. I believe, as do many of my colleagues, that energy efficiency should be a central component of our national energy policy because energy efficiency creates jobs, reduces our dependence on foreign oil, and reduces the pollution of our air and water. Central to the program we are proposing today is its ability to help businesses afford the up- front costs of energy-efficient renovations by helping state and local programs offer low-interest loans that can be paid back through savings on energy bills. As we take action to put Americans back to work, we need to set our sights on programs that provide the biggest bang for our buck in terms of immediate job creation and set our economy up for future growth. Clean energy is not only the next great growth industry, but it's an engine for job creation today. Energy-efficiency programs like Building Star will put Americans to work in construction and manufacturing and save small businesses money as we strive for American energy independence. I would like to thank Senator Pryor for his leadership on this bill as well as Senators Stabenow, Brown, and Sanders in joining the push for a common-sense idea that can create jobs right away and pave the way for future growth in America's clean energy industry. I would also like to recognize Senator Warner's great leadership in developing Home Star, a parallel program that offers energy-efficiency assistance to homeowners. I am proud to stand with my forward-thinking colleagues, Senator Bingaman and Senator Sanders in supporting Home Star and I look forward to continued discussions about how we can maximize the economic benefits of these valuable programs. I would like to focus for a moment on the immediate positive impact that Building Star will have on our economy. Building Star would begin creating jobs immediately and is projected to create as many as 150,000 jobs in some of the economy's hardest-hit sectors including construction, manufacturing, and distribution over the next 2 years. Building Star will stimulate new jobs in the 55,000 construction and manufacturing firms that deal in building, mechanical and low-slope roof insulation, windows, and window films. Eighty-six percent of these firms are small businesses employing less than 20 people. Building Star will maximize Federal investment by leveraging $2 to $3 in private investment for every Federal dollar spent, making it an excellent model for a public-private partnership and maximizing resource efficacy. In addition, Building Star is expected to save building owners more than $3 billion annually on their energy bills by reducing enough peak electricity demand to avoid the need for 33 300-Megawatt power plants. It will also reduce the pollution that contributes to climate change by 21 million metric tons each year, or the equivalent of nearly 4 million cars' emissions, according to the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy. I urge my colleagues to recognize the outstanding opportunity that energy-efficiency renovations offer in putting Americans back to work, saving money for our working families, and moving us toward energy independence. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to help create jobs and lower energy bills for businesses and multi-family residences. This bill would create a program called Building Star, designed to promote energy-saving commercial building renovations through rebates and low-cost financing options. I believe, as do many of my colleagues, that energy efficiency should be a central component of our national energy policy because energy efficiency creates jobs, reduces our dependence on foreign oil, and reduces the pollution of our air and water. Central to the program we are proposing today is its ability to help businesses afford the up- front costs of energy-efficient renovations by helping state and local programs offer low-interest loans that can be paid back through savings on energy bills. As we take action to put Americans back to work, we need to set our sights on programs that provide the biggest bang for our buck in terms of immediate job creation and set our economy up for future growth. Clean energy is not only the next great growth industry, but it's an engine for job creation today. Energy-efficiency programs like Building Star will put Americans to work in construction and manufacturing and save small businesses money as we strive for American energy independence. I would like to thank Senator Pryor for his leadership on this bill as well as Senators Stabenow, Brown, and Sanders in joining the push for a common-sense idea that can create jobs right away and pave the way for future growth in America's clean energy industry. I would also like to recognize Senator Warner's great leadership in developing Home Star, a parallel program that offers energy-efficiency assistance to homeowners. I am proud to stand with my forward-thinking colleagues, Senator Bingaman and Senator Sanders in supporting Home Star and I look forward to continued discussions about how we can maximize the economic benefits of these valuable programs. I would like to focus for a moment on the immediate positive impact that Building Star will have on our economy. Building Star would begin creating jobs immediately and is projected to create as many as 150,000 jobs in some of the economy's hardest-hit sectors including construction, manufacturing, and distribution over the next 2 years. Building Star will stimulate new jobs in the 55,000 construction and manufacturing firms that deal in building, mechanical and low-slope roof insulation, windows, and window films. Eighty-six percent of these firms are small businesses employing less than 20 people. Building Star will maximize Federal investment by leveraging $2 to $3 in private investment for every Federal dollar spent, making it an excellent model for a public-private partnership and maximizing resource efficacy. In addition, Building Star is expected to save building owners more than $3 billion annually on their energy bills by reducing enough peak electricity demand to avoid the need for 33 300-Megawatt power plants. It will also reduce the pollution that contributes to climate change by 21 million metric tons each year, or the equivalent of nearly 4 million cars' emissions, according to the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy. I urge my colleagues to recognize the outstanding opportunity that energy-efficiency renovations offer in putting Americans back to work, saving money for our working families, and moving us toward energy independence. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, I rise to address the Republican filibuster attacking the American worker and the Republican filibuster attacking America's small businesses. I had the chance to go home this weekend. I started my trip home in Deschutes County where there is 14 percent unemployment. Next door to Deschutes, Crook County has 16.8 percent unemployment. That is only counting workers officially unemployed as opposed to those who have given up on finding jobs. I went down to Klamath County to the south, with 12.6 percent unemployment. I went to Hood River and Columbia Gorge, Washington County, the Portland metropolitan area. Everywhere I went in Oregon, whether it be eastern or western or north or south-- because I was in every quarter this weekend--citizens wanted to know why are the Republicans attacking the American worker and American small business? Across this country, our working families are in trouble. They are looking to this body for help. They want to know when are we going to get it done. And by ``it,'' they mean extension of unemployment benefits. They want to know when are we going to get extended the COBRA health benefits. They want to know when we are going to fix the Medicare rates that changed today and dropped more than 20 percent so that it is that much harder to get into the door of a doctor if you are a senior. They want to know why transportation projects are grinding to a halt, even though we need those jobs. The answer lies in this Chamber. This attack on the American worker by the Republican filibuster is unacceptable. This attack on the American senior is unacceptable. This attack on American small business is unacceptable. Not only does this directly impact working Americans and retired Americans, it also affects the economy. Unemployment insurance, COBRA extensions are good for the economy. They help put food on the table. They help pay the rent. All of that money stays in our economy. All of it goes for most families, because they have bills to pay to businesses in the communities. Those businesses can then pay their workers and pay their contractors. One of the best bangs for the buck in terms of economic growth is right before us in unemployment insurance and a COBRA extension. I have puzzled over this challenge. Because what I have observed is this: When it comes to giving away money out of the Treasury to the wealthiest Americans, my colleagues across the aisle are delivering it on a silver platter to the wealthiest and best off. But when it comes to a plan to assist working Americans and seniors and small businesses, my colleagues across the aisle, through this Republican filibuster, are taking the hatchet to them. They are saying: Working Americans don't count. We only want to have benefits on the silver platter for the wealthiest. It is working Americans who made this Nation great. It is the American middle class that created the strongest economy in the world. It is the American public school system and our working families that have come up with the industriousness and the ingenuity to take this Nation forward. When I am talking about the silver platter the Republicans have for the wealthiest in America, let's examine the details. Unfunded Republican program, 2001 tax cuts, a $1.35 trillion giveaway, borrowed from the next generation, from our children. That is quite a gift. That is quite a silver platter. The 2003 tax cuts, $350 billion delivered on a silver platter for the wealthiest Americans. Medicare Part D, an unfunded program, $400 billion on a silver platter; the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, almost $1 trillion--$944 billion--through June of 2009. The total this year will exceed $1 trillion, unpaid for, unfunded, borrowed from our children. There have been some colleagues rising to say how this is a matter of being consistent in paying for American programs. But when you check the record, they voted time and time again for unfunded giveaways to the wealthiest Americans--the 2001 tax cuts, the 2003 tax cuts. And they voted for other programs I like but they were not funded, and I include in that Medicare Part D. When I hear a colleague talking about fiscal responsibility, it is a little like listening to Bernie Madoff talking about tough accounting rules; it is a little bit like hearing from Brett Favre about promising he will retire; it is a little bit like listening to Simon Cowell delivering a lecture that people should not utilize sarcasm. Because after these trillions of dollars of unfunded giveaways, my colleagues have put together a Republican filibuster to attack the American worker in a completely inconsistent manner. I have a different outlook. I think many of my colleagues here have a different outlook. We should be here to make America work for working Americans. That means when they are hurting, we are going to assist them with unemployment insurance, we are going to help with the COBRA extension, we are going to help with these loans to small businesses, and we are going to help our seniors by fixing that Medicare provision. We are not going to take the hammer to those programs. We are going to assist our working families. Because of this Republican filibuster, nearly 1.2 million Americans will lose their benefits, and by June this number will grow to 5 million unemployed workers who will be left without vital benefits if Congress does not act. Let's talk about that small business provision. Small business owners have been hurt because the Small Business Administration's general business loan program expired yesterday, making it more difficult for our small businesses to access loans in an already difficult business climate. My colleague from South Dakota was just on the floor speaking about the importance of helping small businesses. But I say to him and the Republican filibuster attacking small business in America: Come to this floor and say enough is enough; I am going to stand with our workers and our seniors and our small businesses. It is time to end the political posturing, take our eyes off November and put our eyes on the challenge of American families, and pass this legislation right away. I thank the Chair.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. MERKLEY. So if I understand right, there is the complete opportunity to have a debate 30 days from now, but we could have had the debate tonight because there could have been a vote tonight. It was offered but turned down. There will be opportunities throughout this next month, but we are going to cut people off at the worst moment here because one Senator says: I am happy about unfunded gifts to the most fortunate, but I am determined not to help people who are down and out.

Mr. MERKLEY. It is a double standard that bothers me a great deal. We in this Chamber are fortunate enough to receive a paycheck. But back home, I have a tremendous number of families, working families in Oregon who are not going to get a paycheck. I have unemployment in Crook County of 16.8 percent. I have unemployment in Douglas County of 14.9 percent. In Harney County, it is 15.5 percent. In Deschutes County, it is 14.5 percent; Jefferson County, 14.1 percent; Lake County, 12.9 percent; Josephine County, 13.6 percent. These are counties where more than one in eight people is out of work. Am I to say to my good citizens back home that if you are among the most fortunate, we will give you additional benefits, unpaid for, but if you are down and out, it is just too bad, we are going to hold up everything and say we are not going to help you?

Mr. MERKLEY. So the principle being presented tonight is that if you are fortunate to be among the wealthiest Americans, we will give you additional benefits and it doesn't matter if we pay for them. But if you are among the most unfortunate Americans who have lost their jobs-- and when you lose your job, you might well have lost your health care that went with your job--if you are struggling, then it matters that it is paid for immediately.

Mr. MERKLEY. It sounds as if the Senator shares my memory, because I don't remember it in January 2009. I don't remember it in February 2009. I don't remember it in March 2009. I don't remember it in April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December, or January of this year or this month. I am confused. I am confused that the principle has been put forward tonight that there is a reason to hold up a program that hasn't been paid for. Even if we haven't been here late into the evening having a discussion about paying for the tax cuts, are there Members of this body who have held up affairs over the last 14 months, saying it is time to take care of paying for the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans?

Mr. MERKLEY. I am a new Senator. I have been here just over a year. But I don't recall, in January of 2009 when I arrived, that any Member stood up and said: I am going to hold up everything right now until we pay for the tax cuts for the wealthiest. Did that happen in January? Did I miss that?

Mr. MERKLEY. First, I would like to know, as we stand here tonight, have we paid for the tax cuts handed out to the wealthiest Americans?

Mr. MERKLEY. I am deeply disturbed that one could be so disconnected from the challenges of working Americans as to have us in the situation we are in at this moment.

Mr. MERKLEY. The end of March. But there are many people who lose their benefits much sooner if we do not pass this extension?

Mr. MERKLEY. My friend from Tennessee has made some comments about the process. I must say I very much respected the dialog he has been involved in, in the Banking Committee, through the year I have served on that committee, working to find the right way to have regulatory reform that will help put our economy back on track. There is so much I agree with him on. But I completely, respectfully, disagree that it is inappropriate, when unemployment benefits are threatened for our workers in our States, to come to this floor and say: This matters. This matters for working families. When I was asking the people of Oregon to consider my candidacy to come here to represent them, I went on a 100-town tour with 100 public townhalls. In every townhall, people came and talked to me about the challenge of employment and health care. Tonight, both are at stake. I had one woman who stood and she said: I got a letter from my doctor whom I have had for many years. I think she said 20 years. She said: The letter fired me from being a patient because I am on Medicare now and that the doctor had dismissed all the Medicare patients because the calendar could now be filled with folks with private insurance that paid better. My colleague from Alaska was talking about that problem in Alaska. It is a huge problem in Oregon that our seniors who are on Medicare cannot get in the door of a doctor--at least it is increasingly difficult. The result of it being increasingly difficult is, a program they have counted on to provide their health care they are unable to utilize. Tonight we are considering an extension or a fix of the physician payments related to this very issue, whether doctors are going to take and keep taking Medicare patients in their agenda. We have talked about unemployment, but it is equally important we address this Medicare rate because, in my State, it is a growing challenge. We have a generational contract with our citizens over Medicare that they are going to be able to get in the door of a doctor's office. If we do not address this payment issue, then we are not honoring that generational commitment under the Medicare Program. So I do, respectfully, disagree with my colleague from Tennessee. I wish we had more debates such as this. I wish we had more debates such as this with votes. I wish we had a vote tonight, with a debate, and that my good colleague from Kentucky had agreed to have the debate and had made his case and persuaded us on this floor of his point or that others would have made a different point and would have been persuasive. But we didn't have that debate because the offer was made and the offer was rejected. Here I am tonight, looking at the thousands and thousands of Americans who are going to lose their health care because they will not be able to get in a doctor's door, who are going to lose their COBRA benefits and therefore will not be able to afford the expense of health care because they are unemployed, who are going to lose their unemployment insurance benefits--or looking at the businesses that are trying to get small business loans that will not be able to get them if we are not extending the small business loan guarantee program. I think this is about one of the most important debates for working Americans. We need to get this 1-month extension, we need to respect that everyone in this Chamber, every one of our 100 Senators can proceed to carry this debate on over this coming 30 days. We are going to have another chance to vote on this. But tonight we should not take our differences over the process--or our differences over what happened during the Bush administration--and take it out on the most vulnerable members of our society. So I ask my colleague from Illinois, does he share my concern that we are taking procedural differences and age-old debates and we are taking it out on the most vulnerable? Is it the wrong thing to do, as I believe?

Mr. MERKLEY. I thank the Senator. I have before me a chart on workers losing Federal unemployment benefits at the beginning of March. It notes ``Workers Exhausting Regular State Benefits without Additional Federal Extensions'' as 380,000 workers. Then there is an additional column that says ``Workers Prematurely Exhausting Their Federal Benefits'' at the start of March: 813,000. I am rounding off. It has a ``total'' column that says, for the United States as a whole: 1,193,838 individuals lose their benefits. As I am reading this chart, my impression is they are losing their benefits at the end of February if we do not have an extension. Am I reading this correctly?

Mr. MERKLEY

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

Mr. MERKLEY

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

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, today I recognize Tongue Point's 45 years of tireless dedication to helping Oregonians improve the quality of their lives. In 1965, the Tongue Point Job Corps Center began teaching young people the skills to become employable and independent. Since then, the center has remained devoted to its mission of helping its graduates find work or pursue additional education. Last year, an amazing 90 percent of Job Corps graduates found work, enrolled in higher education programs, or enlisted in the military. During these tough economic times, Tongue Point's contribution to our communities helps strengthen the quality of our workforce and ensures that those who want to succeed can. The center provides 16- to 24-year- olds with technical and academic training at no cost to the student, guaranteeing a safe and encouraging space for professional advancement. In recognition of Tongue Point's 45th birthday, I wish to express my sincere appreciation for the work they have done helping young Oregonians find a career path. This center, like all Job Corps Centers nationwide, provides a tremendous service to our Nation, and I wish it all the best in the years to come.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the challenge of putting our economy back on track and the type of leadership we need to take us forward. Much of this last year we have been absorbed in addressing the challenge of major financial institutions failing and the importance of preventing them from failing in order to not have the second Great Depression. So that has put a lot of attention on Wall Street. But to go forward as a nation, we need to turn our attention to Main Street. We need to rebuild the financial foundations for our families. That is why I am rising today to oppose the nomination of Chair Bernanke for a second term as head of the Federal Reserve. I want to take a moment to explain why, when his nomination was in the Banking Committee, I voted against that nomination. I voted against that nomination because I believe Chair Bernanke is not the right person to take us forward. I will acknowledge he has been quite handy with the fire hose; that is, he has been quite handy in addressing and putting out the fire that has affected our economy over this last year. We are not in a great depression, but we are in a severe recession. But do you hand the job of rebuilding a house that has been burnt down by a fire to the person who helped set the fire to begin with? And Ben Bernanke helped set the fire. Ben Bernanke was on the Board of Governors of the Fed from 2002 to 2005. He was chair of the Council of Economic Advisers from 2005 to 2006, and he was Chairman of the Fed from 2006 until now. He has been at the table of economic policymaking in this country for 8 years, when mistake after mistake after mistake has been made. That is how the house was set on fire. Now that it has burned to the ground, we do not need a fireman to rebuild the house; we need a carpenter. We need somebody who understands that short-term wealth on Wall Street is not the goal of our national economic policy. The goal of our policy is to build the financial foundations for our families, the success of our families. Let me mention some of the things that happened while Ben Bernanke was sitting at the table making economic policy. First, there was an enormous explosion in derivatives. ``Derivatives'' is a term that is hard to get your hands around, but let me translate. It is essentially bets on the future aspects of the economy--bets on future interest rates, bets on future bond prices, bets on future stock prices. You can place bets on things you own yourself, and that is akin to an insurance policy, but you can also place bets that are not on assets you own, and then it is pure speculation. Those derivative contracts--those contracts that were essentially speculation on the future--created a web of risk tying one financial institution to the next financial institution, setting them up like dominoes, so if one failed, they endangered the next failing. While this derivatives market exploded-- and there was not a clearinghouse, and there was not an exchange--we heard nothing from Ben Bernanke about the need to address that risk. Then there is the question of leverage, that the Securities and Exchange Commission lifted the leverage requirements on the five largest investment banks, and they proceeded to invest with 30-to-1 leverage ratios. If you have $1, and with that $1 you can borrow $30 and invest those $30, when things go up in value you are going to make enormous money, enormous profit. But, just as assuredly, when they go down in value, you are going to lose your money instantly--very quickly. We do not know when the markets will go up and when the markets will go down, but what we do know is they will go up and down over time, and you need to have a system that is not designed just to reap great benefits on the way up and blow up on the way down. We heard nothing from Ben Bernanke about this risk. It is during this period that proprietary trading increased dramatically. What is proprietary trading? We think of our banks as organizations that take in deposits and make loans. But they also can trade on their own account, and they can borrow money to trade on their own account. You can think of them as day traders in the financial world, only at levels of extreme size, very large size. The risks that are taken in proprietary trading can produce tremendous profits and, when the markets go down, when the bets go bad, enormous losses. Again, we did not hear from Ben Bernanke about the risk that proprietary trading was placing on our depository, lending, banking institutions. Let's address consumer protection. The Fed has the mission of consumer protection. But under Mr. Bernanke's leadership, the responsibility for monetary policy was in the penthouse; safety and soundness were on the upper floors; and consumer protection was put deep in the basement, never to be heard from again. Why was this so important to our financial system? Certain practices grew that completely imperiled our financial system based on consumer protection issues. Specifically, one of those was prepayment penalties in home mortgages and the other was steering payments. Let me explain those a little bit. A steering payment is a payment that a group that is lending the funds makes to a broker to reward them for steering a client into a very expensive loan. As an American family buying a home--say, for example, you have come from your real estate broker. Your real estate broker follows a very strict code of conduct and makes sure everything is absolutely disclosed in a straightforward manner and makes sure you understand whether they are representing the seller or the buyer or both of you. You go to your broker. You are paying your broker, and you think that broker is going to do the best by you. Indeed, your broker might say to you: Home mortgages have become very complicated, and I will serve as your financial adviser. So I will make sure you get the best loan. But what you do not know is that broker is taking a huge fee, a huge steering fee, if you will, to convince you to put your name on a loan that is not in your best interest--a loan that has an exploding interest rate, a loan that has a triple option that will go to a low payment, to a high payment, and a loan that has a prepayment penalty that keeps you locked into that loan and unable to refinance it without several pounds of flesh. Those practices were very valuable to the lender. That is why they paid these payments to the broker, because they could then sell that loan to Wall Street and say: Look how valuable this loan is. The interest rate is going to go way up and the homeowner cannot get out of the loan. That is a valuable asset. Wall Street took those subprime loans and they proceeded to turn them into securities, and they started to sell them to financial institutions throughout the world. So the failure to protect the homeowner from these abusive practices led to systemic risk, not just here in America but financial institutions throughout the world. That responsibility for consumer protection was the Federal Reserve's responsibility. I want to note several things. The first is, I have found, in dealing with Chair Bernanke, that he has been very forthcoming in conversations. He has been very professional. He has been very knowledgeable. And he has been very likable. So nothing I am saying right now is based on any sort of personal feelings. Instead, it is about this: How do we put this economy on track for our families, for the financial future of our families? I have to say, our families have suffered enormously as our national economic house has burned down. They have lost jobs. They have lost their savings. They have often lost their health care that went with their jobs. They have often lost their retirement accounts because the value of the assets they had plunged in that retirement account. Folks who had planned that they were going to have some golden years now are thinking they might have to keep working as long as they are able. Families have lost a great deal. Families are stressed about the future. So these economic mistakes had a huge consequence. We need to have a Chair of the Federal Reserve who will lean into the wind; that is, when something is unpopular but important to address systemic risk, someone who is willing to say to powerful economic entities: This practice is not acceptable. The lack of reserves is not acceptable. Prepayment penalties and steering payments in mortgages are not acceptable. Undisclosed derivatives that tie financial institutions together in a web of risk is not acceptable. Proprietary trading that can make huge profits for a depository-lending institution in one quarter but bring down that same institution in the next must be regulated. We must have a Chairman of the Federal Reserve who will lean into the wind and say these things are important, these lane markers are important, these traffic signals are important. We can think of it akin to a traffic system. You do not want a stop sign on every corner. You do not want paralyzed traffic from overregulation. But you also do not want to strip away the traffic signals, strip away the lane markers, and have the sort of chaos that results in all kinds of traffic accidents and wreckage. Yet that is what happened in our financial system over the 8 years Ben Bernanke was at the table of economic policymaking. You may think that maybe I am overstating the mistakes that were made. I would encourage anyone to look up the Washington Post article written on December 21, 2009, a month and a half ago. This article is an extensive review of decisions the Fed made and their impact in the system. I thought I would give you a sampling from this one article of things you might find interesting and important in this conversation about the economic leadership we had. The article starts out noting that: Foreclosures already pocked Chicago's poorer neighborhoods but the downtown still was booming as the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago convened its annual conference in May 2007. Quoting further from the article: The keynote speaker, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke, assured the bankers and businessmen gathered at the Westin Hotel . . . that their prosperity was not threatened by the plight of borrowers struggling to repay high-cost subprime loans. I quote from Mr. Bernanke. He said to the audience: Importantly, we see no serious broad spillover to banks or thrift institutions from the problems in the subprime market. The troubled lenders, for the most part, have not been institutions with federally insured deposits. The article goes on to note: The Fed's failure to foresee the crisis to require adequate safeguards happened in part because it did not understand the risks that banks were taking, according to documents and interviews with more than three dozen current and former government officials, bank executives and regulatory experts. So that is one example. A second example is, Bernanke had reached a conclusion that essentially the financial system would self-regulate. Reading from the article now: Bernanke said the economy had entered an era of smaller and less frequent downturns, which he and others called ``the great moderation.'' It notes--and I make this as a third point from this article: The Fed let Citigroup make vast investments without setting aside enough money to cover its eventual losses. This article goes on to explain the story with Citigroup and that the reserves were tied into a decision by the Fed; specifically, that a decision was made under accounting rules that when they bought into a pool of securities, those securities were viewed as so stable they didn't need to set aside significant reserves. Here is the interesting point: Even though they had bought those securities and then sold them, they had pledged to cover losses if borrowers defaulted. So they had a significant risk even after these securities had been sold, but that risk was not taken into account when the reserve requirement was set. We can turn to another piece of this. There was a report done by the Fed called the ``Large Financial Institutions' Perspectives on Risk'' and it found: ``No substantial issues of supervisory concern for large financial institutions.'' As you all might recall, many financial institutions were doing regulatory shopping, looking for the regulator who would give them the best deal or the regulator who knew the least about their affairs so they could hardly even ask the right questions. That was certainly a factor in AIG going down. The Fed regulators looked at National City's books and its management and again found nothing amiss. In reality, the bank was ailing. Its subprime borrowers were starting to default on their loans. Less than two months after the Fed approved the merger, National City reported a net loss of $19 million. The company never returned to profitability. I am, again, quoting from that Washington Post analysis: The Fed's failure to see the rot inside National City resulted from the central bank's reliance on others to identify problems. They weren't asking the right questions. They didn't have a team who was going out making sure they understood what was going on. There was another example of this: In January 2005, National City's chief economist had delivered a prescient warning to the Fed's board of governors: An increasingly overvalued housing market posed a threat to the broader economy. This message, the article says, was not well received. One board member expressed particular skepticism, and that board member was Ben Bernanke. Bernanke said: ``Where do you think it will be the worst,'' he asked, according to people attending the meeting. ``I'd have to say California,'' said the economist. Bernanke replied, ``They have been saying that about California since I bought my first house in 1979.'' Ben Bernanke did not think there was an issue even to be thoroughly explored and wrestled with. There is additional information in this article about the Fed's power when mergers occur and it notes: The Fed's power to reject a merger application involving Golden West and Wachovia was a potentially important check on the wave of mergers that created banks so large that their distress would threaten the economy. But from 1999 through last month, the Fed approved 5,670 applications to create or buy a bank and in that time denied only one. Well, that power of the Fed regarding mergers was not utilized. Then, finally, let me note an issue regarding Basel II. Again, I quote from the Washington Post Analysis: Even on the verge of the financial crisis, the Fed continued to push for new international rules that would let many large banks hold less capital. Under the proposed rules, called Basel II after the Swiss city where they were drafted, regulators further increased their reliance on the bank's risk assessments. Sheila Bair, Chairman of the FDIC, warned as follows. She said the new rules ``come uncomfortably close to letting banks set their own capital requirements.'' Again, Ben Bernanke, this last year, has done a good job with the firehose, but now we need to rebuild the economic house for the prosperity of our families. The person to rebuild this house is not the person who sat at the table and made mistake after mistake after mistake over an 8-year period that led to this financial house of ours burning down, with catastrophic results for our families across this Nation. This is why I opposed Ben Bernanke's nomination to again be Chairman of the Fed when I was in the Banking Committee last month, and this is why I will oppose this nomination on the floor of this Senate. Thank you very much. I note the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to share a few thoughts about our health care proposal and also to address the amendment of my good friend from Maryland, Senator Mikulski. We have heard the word ``arrogant'' echo in this Chamber. ``The bill before us is arrogant.'' I come to it with a somewhat different perspective. For 10 years, as a representative of a working class neighborhood back in Oregon, as a State legislator, I have heard a lot of stories from America's working families--from the working families in my House district back home, a lot of stories regarding health care. There is a lot of concern that they can't afford health care. There is a lot of concern that their children do not have appropriate coverage. There is a lot of concern that their health care is tied to their job, and if they lose their job they are going to lose their health care. There is a huge amount of stress for America's families who understand if you have health care you have to worry about losing it, and if you don't have it you have to worry about getting sick. That is why we are here today in this Chamber debating health care, because so many of us have heard from our constituents, so many of us know from our personal experience what a dysfunctional, broken health care system we have in America. Sometimes, listening to this conversation on the Senate floor, you would think this is a rather complicated debate. But the heart of this bill is not that complicated. The heart of this bill is that every single American should have access to affordable, quality health care, and that we can take a model that has worked very well for the Federal employees of our Nation, a model that encourages competition, a model that says let's create a marketplace where every individual, every small business that currently struggles to get health care and has to pay a huge premium for health care--enable them to join a health care pool that will negotiate a good deal on their behalf. I think every American who has tried to get health care on their own, every small business that is paying a 15- to 20-percent premium because they don't have the clout of a large business, understands if they could join with other businesses, if they could join with other individuals, they would get a lot better deal. Americans understand if there is a large pool of citizens who are seeking health insurance that insurers are going to be attracted to market their goods. We have seen that in the Federal employees system, where insurers come and compete. It turns the tables. It takes the power away from the insurance companies and it gives the power to the American citizen because now the citizen is in charge. Now the citizen gets to choose between health care providers instead of having to search for anyone from whom they can possibly get a policy. I do not find that it is arrogant to try to create a system in which individuals and small businesses get health care that is more affordable. I don't find that a bill that says we are going to invest in prevention is arrogant, that is smart. I don't find a bill that says we are going to create incentives to do disease management arrogant, so someone suffering from diabetes has the disease managed rather than ending up with an expensive amputation of their foot. That is intelligent, that is not arrogant. I don't find that having a bill that says every single American is going to find affordable health care, and if they are too poor to afford it we will provide a subsidy to assist them, to get everyone in the door, that is not arrogant. That is saying we are all in this together as citizens and that health care is a fundamental factor in the quality of life. It is a fundamental factor in the pursuit of happiness. It is not arrogant to find for fundamental access to health care. I rise specifically to address the amendment offered by my good friend from Maryland, Senator Mikulski. The legislation we are considering has many parts that make health care more affordable and available, that expand access; many parts to hold insurance companies accountable. But a big part of health care reform also deals with helping people avoid illness or injury in the first place. That is what Senator Mikulski's amendment does and why it is so important that it be included in this package. Preventive screening saves lives. That is a fact. Early detection saves lives. That is a fact. Too many women forgo both because of the cost. I want to share a story from a physician in Oregon. The physician is Dr. Linda Harris. I am going to quote her story in full. It is not that long. She says: I work one day a week at our county's public health department. There I met Sue, a 31-year-old woman who came in with pelvic pain and bleeding. She proved to have extremely aggressive cervical cancer that was stage IV when I diagnosed it. She continues: When Sue was 18 she had a tubal ligation after she gave birth to her only child. As a single mom she did not have the financial resources to have more children. She concentrated on raising her daughter. Sue always worked, sometimes 2 jobs at once, but never the kind of job that offered health insurance. But because she had a tubal ligation she did not qualify for our State's family planning expansion project that provides free annual exams, Pap smears and contraceptive services to many of our clients. The doctor continues: Cervical cancer is an entirely preventable disease. Pap smears almost always find it in its preinvasive form, but Sue never came in for a Pap smear or an annual exam. Her lack of affordable access to basic health care proved fatal. When Sue died of cervical cancer her daughter was 13. That is the completion of the story that the doctor shared. Sue should not be viewed as a statistic in a broken health care system. But, instead, we should take her story to heart, about the importance of preventive services. Sue is one of 44,000 Americans who die each year because they lack insurance, according to a recent Harvard Medical School study. Let me repeat that statistic because I think it is hard to get your hands around--44,000 Americans die each year because they lack insurance. I don't think it is arrogant to say we should build a health care system that gives every single American access to affordable, quality care so that 44,000 of our mothers and fathers, our sons and brothers, our daughters, our wives, our sisters--so that 44,000 of them do not die each year because they lack insurance. Senator Mikulski's amendment will help keep this tragedy from happening to our families. To put it plainly, it will save lives. It does this by allowing the Health Resources and Services Administration to develop evidence-based guidelines to help bridge critical gaps in coverage and access to affordable preventive health services--the same approach the bill takes to address gaps in preventive services for children. This will guarantee women access to the kinds of screenings and tests that can prevent illnesses or stop them early. As the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network notes: Transforming our broken ``sick care'' system depends on an increased emphasis on detection and early prevention, enabling us to find diseases when they are easier to survive and less expensive to treat. That last point is also important. Treating illnesses also saves money. With so much emphasis on the cost of health care, we should all agree that it is common sense to include reforms that lower health care costs for all Americans. I was noticing that her amendment has a long list of organizations stating how important this is--the National Organization for Women, the National Partnership for Women and Families, the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, the American Cancer Society-Cancer Action Network, the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association. I applaud Senator Mikulski for offering this amendment. I urge my colleagues to remember the 44,000 Americans who die every year because they do not have access to insurance, because they do not have access to preventive services, and vote to include this important reform.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, it has been a pleasure to listen to the comments of my colleagues from Michigan and Alaska, Senators Stabenow and Begich. The bill before us saves lives, saves money, saves jobs, strengthens Medicare, and ends insurance abuse. You wouldn't have known that is the case if you were tuning in earlier to the Republican discussion in the last hour because what we had were a series of interesting arguments ranging from the plain silly to the flat wrong. On the plain-silly end, we had a stack of paper about the complexity of a bill that addresses one-sixth of our economy and quality of life for every single American. My friend from Alaska has pointed out that if you put it in a normal size print, that is about equal to a normal book. I think we ought to realize that with a topic as serious as health care reform, which is touching the lives of every American, you are going to want to be thoughtful enough to address it in that detail. We also had in the last hour a conversation about how much does the bill cost per page. Senator Gregg from New Hampshire said the bill is going to cost $2 trillion and there are 2,000 pages, so it costs $2 billion a page. Last I checked with my schoolchildren, 2 divided by 2 is 1, not 2 divided by 2 is 2. But that is not the point. The point is, health care reform is not an issue to be played with hysterics, to be played with phony visuals, to be played with phony math. This is about our future, a future in which our businesses can compete around the world and in which our small businesses are able to provide health care. In fact, this is about quality of life for every single American. In the course of my colleagues from across the aisle discussing the bill, they actually made a pretty good case for it. Let me start with Senator Burr. Senator Burr said health care reform should be about choice but this bill takes one-size-fits-all. Boy, I thought, he is absolutely right. Health care reform should be about choice, and this bill before us is about choice. Right now in America, we have one dominant player in most major health care markets. Even if we have more than one, we have antitrust exemptions that enable the health care companies to collaborate and cooperate. So you don't have real choice in the marketplace today. What does this bill do? This bill says we are going to give every American the same type of choice Federal employees have. I became a Federal employee in January after I was elected and sworn in. I was told to go to a Web site and look at all the choices I had. My wife and I sat down and looked at the situation facing our family, and we chose the health care plan we thought would be best for us. We had that choice. What this bill does is it creates a health care exchange or health care marketplace that creates those choices and puts them in front of every family. I will tell you that right now it is very hard for an insurance company to go into a new market. Why is that the case? Because in health care, unlike in life insurance, you have to do contracts with the providers. You cannot sell health insurance if you don't have arrangements with the hospitals and the doctors. It is very expensive to do. You don't yet have any customers. So it is very hard to break into a new market. But now, if you have a computer marketplace that citizens who go to the exchange are going to see and have a chance to change plans every year, you have automatic access to the customers and you can then afford to make contracts with the hospitals and physicians. It encourages competition across State lines. Take Oregon. You may have a company operating in Washington, Idaho, or California now say: Yes, we want to be on that exchange in Oregon. I say to my colleague from North Carolina, he is right, reform should be about choice, and this bill is about choice. My colleague, Senator Barrasso, told a poignant story. He told a story about his wife having breast cancer and how fortunate he was and she was and their family was that it was detected by a mammogram and how important that type of preventive care is. I couldn't agree with him more. But millions of Americans--45 million, 47 million, one report says 50 million--do not have health care, and therefore they cannot get those preventive tests. They cannot get that mammogram if they are a woman. They cannot get that prostate checked if they are a man. Senator Barrasso makes a very good point about why we need to expand health care coverage throughout this Nation. The bill Senator Reid has put before us will reach between 94 to 98 percent of all Americans. The question came up: Why not 100 percent? Because Americans move a lot. Americans have crises and may not be paying attention when they are supposed to sign up. There will always be a small part of the population that is not signed up for health care. That is why it is a few percentage points. Let's put it this way: 100 percent of Americans will have the opportunity to have affordable, accessible health care. That is what this bill is about. Returning to my colleague from North Carolina, he made the point that the bill before us is not about reform and that it should be about reform, about insurance reform. I have good news, good tidings for my colleague from North Carolina. Embedded in this bill are all kinds of reforms that are important for every person who has insurance in the United States of America. First of all, guaranteed issue. You cannot be turned down because you have a preexisting condition if we pass this bill. I cannot tell you how many Oregonians--and I am sure it is true in North Carolina--have been turned down for health care insurance because of some health care problem they had in the past, maybe in the far past of their life. This bill says you cannot have a lifetime limit. What kind of insurance do you really have if you have a $50,000 or $100,000 lifetime limit? After 20 years of paying your premiums, you get sick and, as you all know, you can wipe out $50,000 or $100,000 in a week or two. And now you are informed--you paid health care insurance for 20 years, you have been in the hospital for 2 weeks--sorry, you are on your own now. What kind of insurance is that when it is not there when you need it? This bill reforms that. This bill adds nondiscrimination for gender, which is a fundamental value I think all Americans share. This bill says you cannot be dumped off your insurance when you get sick or you have an accident. How many Americans have paid health care insurance premiums for years, paid those premiums month after month, are very healthy, rarely go to the hospital, rarely go to the doctor, but then they have a car accident and are seriously injured or they have bad news and have gotten a serious disease and they get that letter from their insurance company saying: Sorry, we are not renewing your insurance; you are on your own. So now, because preexisting conditions are not allowed, they cannot get insurance from anybody else either. They truly are on their own. This bill reforms that. I am glad to let my colleague from North Carolina know that this bill is about reform. Senator Enzi noted the story of selling shoes, that he had three shoestores and that when a customer came in and he showed him a shoe and that customer said that shoe is too expensive, he knew he shouldn't keep pushing the same shoe, he should not keep trying to sell it. No, he should show him a different shoe. That is exactly what the public option does in this bill. Those who are in support of the status quo and don't want reform, they want to keep sending the same shoe, keep saying: Americans, you have only one choice or maybe a couple choices. But within a situation where there are no antitrust provisions, you just have to keep going back to that private company--no new shoe for you; no different product for you. But this bill says: No, if you are not happy with that, there is another alternative. In fact, this bill not only gives you one new shoe, it gives you two. Nonprofit co-ops can be set up--a provision that came to us through the Finance Committee--and it gives you a strong public option, a plan dedicated to healing, not dedicated to profits. So if you are not satisfied with the insurance you have, you have some alternative choices. I think my colleagues across the aisle made a very good case--maybe better than the case I could make--for the fact that we need health care reform. We need it for large businesses so they can compete around the world, and we need it for our small businesses so they can afford to provide health care to their employees. We need it for our families because health care is about the biggest stress families face in America. If you have health care, you are worried about losing it, and if you don't have it, you are worried about getting sick. We need health care reform today.