Jeff Merkley

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on National Parks be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate to conduct a hearing on November 4, 2009, at 2:30 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on November 4, 2009, at 10 a.m., in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10 a.m. tomorrow, November 3; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate recess from 10:15 a.m. until 11:30 a.m. to allow for a joint meeting of Congress; that following the joint meeting, the Senate resume consideration of H.R. 3548, the Unemployment Benefits Extension Act of 2009; further, that the Senate recess from 12:30 p.m. until 2:15 p.m. to allow for the weekly caucus luncheons; and finally, that the time during any adjournment, recess, or period of morning business count postcloture.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it adjourn under the previous order.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, German Chancellor Angela Merkel will address a joint meeting of Congress tomorrow at 10:30 a.m. Senators are encouraged to gather in the Senate Chamber at 10 a.m. so we may proceed as a body to the Hall of the House of Representatives at 10:15.

Mr. MERKLEY

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 I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, I rise this evening to address the issue of health care in our society, and specifically the public option. Earlier today I had a chance to listen to some of my colleagues defend the status quo system. They wanted to argue that health care reform should not occur now--maybe sometime later. I guess the 100 years we have spent as a country, working to have affordable, accessible health care for every citizen, the 100 years we spent in that debate isn't enough. There is a novel by a couple of ladies who were turning 100. They titled their novel ``The Second Hundred Years,'' or ``Our Second Hundred Years.'' That was a beautiful glimpse into the possibility of a life well-filled and a life of anticipated fulfillment as they went into their old age post-100. We are in a different situation with health care. This 100-year debate should not go on for another 100 years; another 100 years for us to consider the possibility, the principle that every single person in America should have affordable, accessible, quality health care. I heard earlier today a lot of scare words thrown out to defend the current system and encourage citizens to be afraid of reform. Those scare words are very unnecessary because citizens in America know our health care system is broken. They know it from their personal experience. So opponents of reform, they don't want to have a plan, they simply want to scare citizens into sticking with the broken status quo. Indeed, sometimes there is a certain concern about change, what change will bring. Well, let's look for a moment at what the status quo is bringing us. Our health care costs are doubling every 6 to 8 years. That means a lot of folks who could afford health care just a few years ago cannot afford it today. A lot of small businesses that could afford health care 6 to 8 years ago cannot afford it today. A lot of big businesses that are competing internationally were more competitive 6 to 8 years ago than they are today. I would like to be able to tell you that the rate of increase in the cost of health care has declined but, if anything, it has increased. We are looking at another doubling over the years to come, over the next 6 to 8 years. I do not know about anyone else, but given how high health care costs are today for the American family, do we want a system, a broken system, that is going to double those costs again in the very near future? Is that a good future for America? Is that affordable health care? Is that accessible health care? Is that an ability to acquire quality health care, which I think every American citizen knows in their heart that, indeed, that is not affordable or accessible or quality health care, to have a system that is doubling every 6 to 8 years. The other thing we know about health care in America is that folks who have insurance still have a lot of challenges. Well, the first is getting insurance in the first place because our current system allows insurance companies, as incredible as this might seem, to say: No, we do not want you. You have a family history of diabetes. You have a preexisting condition. It might simply be a skin rash. It might be anything. People are turned down for health care day and night in our country. Well, those are a lot of American citizens who do not get to participate in our health care system. What about those folks who do get insurance and they go along paying their premiums year after year, 10 years, 15 years, and then they finally have a health care problem and they get a letter from their health insurance company that says: We are dumping you off your health care plan. Now that you are sick, we do not want to cover you anymore. What kind of fairness is there in that for the American citizen, that companies can dump you off your plan when you finally need health care, after you have been paying your premiums month after month, year after year, or decade after decade, and finally you have an illness that needs to be covered and, whoosh, your health care coverage is gone. That is not a fair system for those who have health issues in our Nation. So we need to reform this system. It starts by ending the unfairness for those who have it. It is called insurance reform. No more blocking folks from being accepted into health care--universal guaranteed access. No more dumping of folks off health care insurance once you become ill--an end to dumping, an end to preexisting conditions. In other words, health care reform for those who have insurance is all about fairness. There were some other words thrown out earlier today, words such as ``deficit,'' ``government takeover,'' ``increases in premiums.'' All those are scare words designed to mislead the citizens from following the logic of their own experience, their own common sense about the broken health care system we have in America. But let's consider some other words. How about ``competition.'' It may surprise some to find out we do not have much competition at all in health care here in America. Why is that? It is because the health care insurance industry is exempt from competition. They are allowed to work together as an exemption for antitrust. They are allowed to coordinate and to compare. That works to the benefit of the companies, but it does not work to the benefit of the citizens. In addition, a lot of markets in this country have a single dominant provider, often 80 percent of the market. That does not work toward competition. What do you get here in America in a market where you have no competition or very little competition? What you get are extraordinarily high costs that are doubling every 6 to 8 years. That is not a system that works for citizens. So how about we introduce competition. That is as American as apple pie. How can we do that? What we can do is have a health care competitor dedicated to healing, not dedicated to corporate profits. That health care entity, that publicly created structure of health care, indeed healing, they are not trying to maximize their profits at the expense of citizens; they are trying to invest in the citizens to maximize wellness. It is a completely different model. It is a model about prevention. It is a model about disease management. It is a model about healthy choice incentives. That is the competition that a public option or a community health plan will introduce with health care all over our Nation. I think lower costs and competition are good things. I think giving citizens more choice is a good thing. Here are some brilliant aspects of this. If you do not have competition right now due to the antitrust provisions or due to the dominance of a single payer, then the citizens can look at the possibility and go: Well, they are all about the same. That is not real competition. But now, if you introduce a player that is not there to maximize profits, is there to maximize wellness, that is real choice. Nobody would be asked to take a public option or community health care plan choice over a private insurance company. That is why they call it choice. That is why they call it an option. You would get to choose. Let us empower our citizens through choice in the marketplace. Again, this is red, white, and blue American competition to benefit consumers of health care services. We have had a lot of conversation about health care this year. It has certainly been an intense conversation since January. We have five bills that have come out of committees. Many folks like to stack up all those bills and say: Look how complicated it is. Look how complicated health care reform is. Well, it is a bit complicated because we have multiple health care systems in our country. We have a Veterans' Administration system. We have a Medicare system. We have a Medicaid system. We have private insurance companies in the system. We have another system for all those folks who cannot qualify for any of the first ones. It is this: Save your money and hope you have enough when you get sick. If you do not, then I am sorry, you are in trouble. There are some statistics on this: 45,000 Americans a year die because they do not have access to health care, 45,000. That can be compared to just about virtually anything else that happens in this country. That is a pretty big total. That is a lot of suffering. That is not just folks who get sick and suffer, all those folks who get sick and suffer and die. We had a gentleman in central Oregon who had a tumor growing on his spine. His doctor asked the private insurance company for an MRI, permission to do imaging so they would understand what was happening. The insurance company, the private insurance company, turned him down. So the patient and his doctor found a second expert. The second expert went over the man and said: He needs to have an MRI. They sent a request to the insurance company. The insurance company turned him down, again. He died from that tumor on his spine. He actually had health insurance, but he had health insurance with a private insurance company coming between him and his doctor. Some of my colleagues like to say under a public plan the government gets involved. Well, not really. It is you and your doctor. Right now we have insurance companies that come between you and your doctor every single day. Why not give the American citizen this choice to have a different system, a system dedicated to healing, a system that will create competition, a system that will hold the private insurance company's feet to the fire. That is the community health care plan or the public option. I will conclude with this notion, that competition that lowers costs, increases choice, and improves service is a wonderful direction for health care reform to go. We have made many steps in that direction. But we have not gotten that bill to the President's desk. Let's do that. Let's get that bill that increases choice, improves service, and lowers costs, let's get that bill to the President's desk by Christmas. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I thank Senator Begich. My colleagues have been pointing out the importance of innovation. Senator Burris addressed how competition and the public option would increase innovation. Senator Shaheen just noted some of the models and efforts in her State. We need to share the insights of that throughout this Nation so we can take the best practices to produce the best quality results in every corner of our Nation. I rise to speak about a different aspect of innovation; specifically, that in order for our citizens to benefit from this innovation, health care needs to be affordable. Currently, health care is on a road to unaffordability and inaccessibility. If we do not pass health care reform, costs will eat up a bigger and bigger share of the gross domestic product and our families' budgets. More families will lose their insurance because they simply cannot afford it. Many other families will be forced into personal bankruptcy as medical bills spiral out of control. And, much worse, some Americans will die because of inadequate or delayed care. We cannot continue on this path. First, health care has become increasingly unaffordable and will only get worse. This is true whether we look at it through a macroeconomic perspective, the family perspective, or the small business perspective. Looking at the economy as a whole, in 2008, health care spending in the United States reached $2.4 trillion. It is projected to reach $3.1 trillion by 2012, and if it continues in that fashion, it will reach $4.3 trillion by 2016. Add up those 10 years and what we find is we will be spending $30 trillion to $40 trillion for health care in just a 10-year period. If we frame this through the family perspective, the cost increases are felt all over the Nation through double-digit annual increases in premiums. Workers are paying $1,600 more in premiums annually for family coverage now than they did 10 years ago. To put it differently, for many families, the cost has doubled over the last 8 years, and the cost will double again over the next 8 or 10 years. The result is that families who could afford health care a few years ago cannot afford it today, and many who can barely afford it today will not be able to afford it tomorrow. Our small businesses feel the pain as well. At the Hawthorne Auto Clinic in Portland, the cost of premiums has gone from 9 percent of the payroll to 18 percent of the payroll in the last 5 years. That is a huge amount of money diverted from hiring more staff or increasing wages for the staff or from investing in more capital equipment. These costs are hurting our families and damaging our small businesses. Second, as costs go up, more and more Americans will lose coverage. We are used to hearing there are 45 million Americans uninsured. But a recent study from the University of North Carolina estimates that 6 million Americans have been added to the ranks of the uninsured since 2007--6 million more uninsured since 2007--putting the number of Americans uninsured at 51 million to 52 million. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, more than 80 percent of the uninsured are from working families. Members of the family have jobs. Take Karen Jeffrey from Ashland, OR. When she moved to Oregon from Hawaii, she tried to buy new insurance. Because she had suffered from a broken hip and a bout of cancer 15 years earlier, she could not find affordable coverage. So Karen is simply waiting until she can qualify for Medicare at age 65. If a medical emergency strikes before that arrives, that medical incident will be devastating. If we do not act now, rising health care costs will cause financial ruin for millions of families. A recent study in the American Journal of Medicine found that 62 percent of all bankruptcies filed in 2007 were from medical expenses. Of those who filed for bankruptcy due to medical problems, about three- fourths had health insurance. Even with insurance, many Americans are underinsured and devastated by a medical emergency. The impact of these bankruptcies reverberates throughout our families, throughout our economy. Every year 1.5 million families lose their home to foreclosure as a result of unaffordable medical costs. We also know families pay with their lives. In September, a Harvard Medical School study showed that 45,000 people die in the United States each year, 1 every 12 minutes, because of a lack of health insurance and cannot get good care--45,000 Americans each year. That is more than the number of Americans who died in the Revolutionary War. It is roughly equal to the number of our soldiers who died in combat in Vietnam over a 16-year period. It is the equivalent of 30 Titanics sinking every year--Americans dying because of unaffordable health care. We need health care reform that drives innovation. We have a tremendous number of models around the States to promote and improve, but we need to make health care affordable in order to get that innovation into the hands and benefits of our citizens. That is why we must proceed with health care reform now. There is no time to waste. Mr. President, I thank Senator Begich for moderating this discussion and putting in the spotlight the role and importance of innovation.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. So not only do we have little competition because there are many markets with only a couple of companies providing services, but because of the antitrust provisions, those companies are allowed to talk to each other, to collaborate on what rates they charge or what deals they make with providers, further reducing competition, even when there are a couple companies in the market. If we take and flip this notion of competition and look at it through the eyes of the individual working American, then what it becomes is choice. Lack of competition in the marketplace equals lack of choice for individual Americans. I read this story in the press last weekend in central Oregon about this fellow who could not get an MRI. He had probably very few choices about what insurance company he could go to. Would it not be great if he would have the ability during an open window each year to be able to say: I am not satisfied with the service I am receiving or I am not satisfied with the premium I am being charged, and I want to change to a different company or a different provider to see if they do a better job. That is the heart of the American capitalist system if there is competition and, therefore, choice for the individual. These two things go hand in hand. When folks say that what will happen with a public option is that it will reduce choice, I must say, what are they thinking, because we don't have choice now. But if you bring in a community health option or a public option, then you do have real choice as a citizen. You can march with your feet. You can sign up for this program or this program or this program. We have competition between governmental opportunities and nongovernmental in other areas. I don't think I would like to say to the citizens in the State of Oregon: You no longer have a choice of mailing a letter with the post office. Everything you do regarding the mail has to be through a private company. I don't think I would like to say to the citizens of Oregon: You no longer have the choice of sending your kids to public school. You have to choose between solely private options. It is a positive thing to have competition, and having a strong, robust public option is going to create a real opportunity for our citizens to choose and, in so doing, create this competition, improve service, and lower costs. If we don't lower costs, then we truly have not succeeded in health care reform.

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I am happy to jump in. Last weekend, I was over in central Oregon--in Bend--and I was reading local clips. One of the articles that came across was about a lawsuit that had been filed. The article said that a year before an individual had passed away because they had repeatedly asked for an MRI to address a pain he had in his back. It turned out to be a tumor, and it killed the individual. But they could never get the MRI approved. The doctor requested it, but it wasn't approved. Another doctor requested it--a consulting doctor--and it wasn't approved. Eventually, the tumor was beyond the point of being able to be operated on. The individual passed away. That article talked about a second parallel situation that is unfolding right now. The individual is still alive but also is seeking an MRI and is being turned down by the same company. I thought, that is how an insurance company makes those profits--by turning down requests for coverage. Hopefully, it doesn't come to the point that a diagnostic exam is denied to the degree that someone is going to die, but it happens. It happened in this particular case. The motivating factor of the management of the company was to maximize profit, not to maximize healing. The Senator from Rhode Island served as insurance commissioner. I am sure he saw examples of this. If I heard him right, he is saying that in a public option the motivation is healing, not profit, and therefore has a long-term perspective. Therefore, it can invest in prevention, in disease management. A private company will not assume that its customer, the policyholder, will still be a customer in 10, 15 years. They take a short-term perspective. That is to minimize the amount you spend on health care. But the longer term perspective would be much better for the quality of life of our citizens, and certainly investment in prevention and disease management might have tremendous rewards in bending the cost curve.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I join today with Senator Boxer of California to introduce legislation that will help create jobs by getting credit flowing to small businesses and consumers. Small businesses employ half of the Nation's workforce and are key to creating jobs. Sadly, they have been hit hard by the credit crisis. Less than one-third of small businesses report that their credit needs are being met today, and 59 percent of them now rely on credit cards to finance their daily operations, up from 44 percent at the end of last year. We urgently need to speed credit to small businesses so that they can create jobs and grow the economy. The best way to do so is through the thousands of community banks located across our Nation. Community banks are essential to small business lending. Our Nation's 7,500 community banks of under $1 billion in assets hold 11 percent of our Nation's assets, but they make 38 percent of our Nation's small business loans by asset. Due to the current economic recession, these responsible, well-regulated institutions have seen their capital bases shrunk and have been forced to reduce lending, which negatively impacts surrounding businesses and communities. These institutions can help us turn our economy around if we give them the capital they need to increase the flow of credit to small businesses and entrepreneurs. The Bank on Our Communities Act will help get capital to community banks--on the condition that they restart lending. The bill empowers the Secretary of the Treasury to redeploy up to $15 billion in TARP into a new Community Credit Renewal Fund. Community banks of $5 billion in assets or less can qualify for investment by the Fund if they conduct an internal stress test to determine the amount of capital they need to remain well-capitalized during adverse economic conditions and restart small business and consumer lending and raise at least 50 percent of that target recapitalization amount from private investors. Once in receipt of their new capital, participating banks would be required to increase small business and consumer lending by at least the amount provided by the Fund and to increase small business lending in particular by at least 5 percent over the lowest point in 2009. Additional incentives are given to increase lending to credit-worthy businesses above the minimum levels required for program participation. This bill is common sense legislation with common sense values. It will give the folks on Main Street the same access and opportunity as those on Wall Street and create much needed jobs in the process. I ask that my colleagues join me in the effort to help small businesses thrive in our local communities and get our economy back on track.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I join today with Senator Boxer of California to introduce legislation that will help create jobs by getting credit flowing to small businesses and consumers. Small businesses employ half of the Nation's workforce and are key to creating jobs. Sadly, they have been hit hard by the credit crisis. Less than one-third of small businesses report that their credit needs are being met today, and 59 percent of them now rely on credit cards to finance their daily operations, up from 44 percent at the end of last year. We urgently need to speed credit to small businesses so that they can create jobs and grow the economy. The best way to do so is through the thousands of community banks located across our Nation. Community banks are essential to small business lending. Our Nation's 7,500 community banks of under $1 billion in assets hold 11 percent of our Nation's assets, but they make 38 percent of our Nation's small business loans by asset. Due to the current economic recession, these responsible, well-regulated institutions have seen their capital bases shrunk and have been forced to reduce lending, which negatively impacts surrounding businesses and communities. These institutions can help us turn our economy around if we give them the capital they need to increase the flow of credit to small businesses and entrepreneurs. The Bank on Our Communities Act will help get capital to community banks--on the condition that they restart lending. The bill empowers the Secretary of the Treasury to redeploy up to $15 billion in TARP into a new Community Credit Renewal Fund. Community banks of $5 billion in assets or less can qualify for investment by the Fund if they conduct an internal stress test to determine the amount of capital they need to remain well-capitalized during adverse economic conditions and restart small business and consumer lending and raise at least 50 percent of that target recapitalization amount from private investors. Once in receipt of their new capital, participating banks would be required to increase small business and consumer lending by at least the amount provided by the Fund and to increase small business lending in particular by at least 5 percent over the lowest point in 2009. Additional incentives are given to increase lending to credit-worthy businesses above the minimum levels required for program participation. This bill is common sense legislation with common sense values. It will give the folks on Main Street the same access and opportunity as those on Wall Street and create much needed jobs in the process. I ask that my colleagues join me in the effort to help small businesses thrive in our local communities and get our economy back on track.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, it is a pleasure to talk about health care following upon the remarks of Senator Jeanne Shaheen and Senator Mark Warner, both of whom, as Governors, had the opportunity to know firsthand how important health care reform is to taking our Nation forward. They come from very diverse States, but the observation is the same. Health care reform is essential to putting our Nation back on track, and now is the time. I wish to direct my comments specifically to the benefits of health care reform to small business. We all know the current system doesn't work for small business employers or their employees. Without numbers behind them, they have no ability to negotiate rates with insurance companies. They are like lambs led to the slaughter. More often than not, they have to take whatever deal is offered. Those deals are not very good. On average, small businesses pay 18 percent more than large firms for the same health insurance policies. Because of this, they are far less likely to provide health insurance. Just 49 percent of firms with 3 to 9 workers and only 78 percent of firms with 10 to 24 workers offer health insurance to their employees, as compared to 99 percent of firms with 200 or more employees in the same year. When small firms do offer health care, rising premiums force owners to make hard choices between keeping health coverage, expanding their operations, or increasing wages. In the last decade, health care premiums for the average Oregon family more than doubled, while median earnings rose only 23.8 percent. It is no coincidence. Employers are spending more in compensation, but that compensation is going to higher insurance premiums rather than higher wages. Last month I talked to small business owners in Medford and Portland, OR, who share strikingly similar stories about the problems rising health care costs are causing for them. Dave Wilkerson runs a Medford architectural firm that has 12 full-time employees. He is dedicated to providing a family-friendly work environment, and he provides full medical, dental, and vision coverage to his employees. The company has had to deal with large annual increases in health care premiums and has had to change carriers several times in order to try to keep costs down. Health care costs are the second highest expense for David's firm. Only payroll exceeds them. This year rising health care costs forced David and his partners to look very closely at either eliminating health care benefits or laying off employees. Jim Houser and his wife Liz Dally tell a similar story. They operate the Harthorne Auto Clinic in Portland. When they opened their doors 26 years ago, they made a commitment to offer those who worked for them a good benefits package, including comprehensive health care. Jim and Liz are still able to provide health insurance to their employees, but premiums have gone from 9 percent of their payroll to 18 percent in 5 years. As a result, they have had to cut back on benefits. These and otherwise successful small businesses have been hamstrung by health care costs. Will reform help these small businesses? Yes, it will. It will help them a lot. First, it will allow them to enter health care exchanges, where they will be part of a much larger pool. With their increased market clout, they will be able to negotiate lower premium costs. These rates will be much more stable than in past years. One sick employee will no longer make an entire group uninsurable. Second, the exchanges will offer more and better policies from which to choose. Currently, many small businesses struggle to find any insurers that will offer policies. But through health care reform, and as part of the exchange, they will be able to choose from a number of different plans. Because these plans will have to meet certain standards, small businesses will have higher quality policies from which to choose. Finally, better choices at a lower price will mean small businesses can dedicate more revenue to increasing wages--more money in the pockets of their employees--have more opportunity to invest in new equipment or hire additional employees. This is good for these owners, it is good for our economy, and it is good for the employees. Health care costs have become a millstone around the neck of our small businesses, dragging down our economy. Health care reform will help small businesses thrive by lowering cost, improving service, and enabling small business owners to focus on making their businesses more successful. I yield back the floor to my colleague from New Hampshire, and I thank her for conducting and managing this set of conversations from the freshman Senators today.

Mr. MERKLEY

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

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I rise to address the devastating jobs crisis hitting my home State of Oregon. Last Monday, we got new job numbers. On the face, it was good news. The rate of unemployment dropped from 12.2 percent to 11.5 percent. Of course, we would all expect this is because there were more jobs. As it turns out, that is not the case. Oregon lost 10,300 jobs in September. The unemployment rate dropped simply because, in the face of so much unemployment, many Oregonians are giving up in their search for a job. A year ago, 121,000 Oregonians were unemployed. This September, 211,000 Oregonians were out of work. Jobs are hard to find in my home State right now. The reasons for this are many. We are an export State that has seen our trading partners hit hard with their own economic problems, countries such as South Korea whose GDP, year over year, dropped up to 20 percent. Mexican penalty tariffs have hit Oregon's agricultural sector, our fruits and our Christmas trees, particularly hard. One of our main industries, the timber industry, which produces dimensional lumber for construction all across this great United States, has been wiped out by the collapse of construction and housing sectors of our economy. Allow me to zero in on the county where I was born, Douglas County. In September, Douglas County had a seasonally adjusted unemployment rate of 16.1 percent. One out of every six adults was out of a job. Douglas County is a big timber county. There is no market for dimensional lumber right now. The recovery package has helped some by creating jobs preventing wildfires in choked and overgrown second- growth forests, but that is not enough. We need the housing markets to turn around. We need to diversify Douglas County's economic base by investing in clean energy technology that will turn biomass from the forests into renewable fuels. We are hard at work on both fronts, attempting to stabilize housing and crafting new clean energy legislation. But in the meantime, workers in Douglas County are hurting. There are not enough jobs. It is a crisis for the Douglas County families. In a crisis, we help our neighbors. One of the best ways we can help our neighbors and friends in Douglas County and other counties throughout Oregon and other counties throughout the United States of America is to pass an extension of unemployment benefits. Let me be clear: Oregonians want jobs. That is our first and best answer. If there are jobs out there, citizens will line up to get them. But when there are no jobs, we need to have help. The extension of unemployment benefits is such help. It would extend benefits for 14 weeks for all States and 20 weeks for high unemployment States such as the State of Oregon. It is paid for through extending a fee employers are already paying. So it puts no additional pressure on business but provides a critical safety net to our out-of-work Americans. Before I close, I wish to add one point: This bill will help these families and workers get by, but it will also help our economy as a whole by putting money into the hands of those who need it most. Unemployment benefits rapidly turn into bags of groceries, new and secondhand school clothes, needed home repairs. All of that has a big impact on small businesses in Douglas County and small towns such as Roseburg, Sutherlin, and Myrtle Creek. That is why economists say extending unemployment insurance is about the best job-creating step the Federal Government could take. I understand some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are objecting to consideration of this bill. They do not want that bill to come to this floor. I think we need to look more closely at this issue. A bill extending unemployment benefits to assist in shoring up the financial foundations of our working families while they are still searching for those jobs is essential. We need to have not partisan potshots but real help for working families. I appreciate that some Members of this Chamber may come from States that are doing quite well right now. There may be some States in America that are not in the middle of a jobs crisis, but far too many of our States are similar to Oregon, where families need assistance. The delay of providing an extension of unemployment benefits will cause real pain to families in those States and slow down the effort for our economy as a whole to recover. I urge my colleagues to join in supporting the working families of Douglas County, the working families of Oregon, the working families of the United States of America, and support job creation by supporting this extension of unemployment benefits. I yield the floor.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, today Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee and I come together to introduce the Federal Reserve Accountability Act. Over the course of the financial crisis, the Federal Reserve has taken extraordinary actions to stabilize our financial system. In doing so, it has departed significantly from its traditional relationship with markets. It is essential, therefore, that we bring greater openness and transparency to the Federal Reserve. We are introducing the Federal Reserve Accountability Act because we believe that it strikes the right balance in making the Federal Reserve's new emergency lending activities subject to a robust financial audit by the Government Accountability Office, GAO, without disturbing the Federal Reserve's monetary policy independence or its role as emergency lender of last resort. The Federal Reserve Accountability Act would require the GAO to audit the accounting, financial reporting, and internal controls of all Federal Reserve emergency credit programs that are not already subject to audit. To protect against the risk that disclosure of the participation of particular institutions could disrupt markets, the GAO would be required to redact the names of specific institutions. Names would, however, be made available 1 year after each emergency program is no longer used. For additional transparency and public accessibility, the legislation would also require that the Federal Reserve place these GAO audits along with additional audit materials under a new ``Audit'' section on its website. The many emergency lending programs created over the past year have certainly helped bring the financial markets back from the brink of collapse. But it is now time to set up a process for each lending facility to be fully audited by the GAO and reaffirm our commitment to openness and transparency whenever taxpayer dollars are used. I am hopeful that we can move quickly to enact this important legislation, and I urge my colleagues to join us in this effort.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, today Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee and I come together to introduce the Federal Reserve Accountability Act. Over the course of the financial crisis, the Federal Reserve has taken extraordinary actions to stabilize our financial system. In doing so, it has departed significantly from its traditional relationship with markets. It is essential, therefore, that we bring greater openness and transparency to the Federal Reserve. We are introducing the Federal Reserve Accountability Act because we believe that it strikes the right balance in making the Federal Reserve's new emergency lending activities subject to a robust financial audit by the Government Accountability Office, GAO, without disturbing the Federal Reserve's monetary policy independence or its role as emergency lender of last resort. The Federal Reserve Accountability Act would require the GAO to audit the accounting, financial reporting, and internal controls of all Federal Reserve emergency credit programs that are not already subject to audit. To protect against the risk that disclosure of the participation of particular institutions could disrupt markets, the GAO would be required to redact the names of specific institutions. Names would, however, be made available 1 year after each emergency program is no longer used. For additional transparency and public accessibility, the legislation would also require that the Federal Reserve place these GAO audits along with additional audit materials under a new ``Audit'' section on its website. The many emergency lending programs created over the past year have certainly helped bring the financial markets back from the brink of collapse. But it is now time to set up a process for each lending facility to be fully audited by the GAO and reaffirm our commitment to openness and transparency whenever taxpayer dollars are used. I am hopeful that we can move quickly to enact this important legislation, and I urge my colleagues to join us in this effort.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I am delighted to join my colleagues from Colorado and Alaska to tackle some of the myths being printed about health care reform. It is startling to stand on the floor and hear increasingly shrill presentations from those who wish to defend the status quo broken system of health care in America. I wonder to myself, do they not hear what I hear from my constituents about the challenges they encounter each and every day if they do not have insurance; who are worried about getting sick or, if they have insurance, are worried about losing that insurance; worried about the problems and challenges faced with utilizing that insurance? I rise to talk about one of the most prevalent myths--that health care reform is only about expanding access to those who don't have health insurance. Because here is the truth: Health care reform is about improving health care for those who already have insurance. Those with insurance in the United States live in a precarious state. Their rates often go up by double-digit increases every year, so affordability is hanging by a thread. Those who have insurance through their jobs can change jobs and lose that coverage. They could get dropped from their insurance because they become sick or injured or they could find that their insurance has lifetime or annual limits that block them from obtaining the medical care they need if they do become injured or ill. We want to make health care insurance more stable and secure for those who have it, and that is what health care reform will do. First, health care reform will make insurance portable. If you lose your job, you often lose your coverage. That is a terrible double whammy for American families. Health care reform will make sure your coverage goes with you if you lose your job or if you choose to take on a new career. Second, health care reform will end dumping--the terrible practice of insurance companies canceling policies when those citizens become seriously ill. That is wrong. What kind of health care system is it when you pay insurance premiums for 15 years and then your child or your spouse or perhaps yourself becomes seriously ill and you get a letter from your insurance company saying they are canceling your insurance? That is not health insurance. That is a scam. Health care reform will end that scam in America. Finally, health care reform will get rid of annual or lifetime limits that drive people into bankruptcy, even when they have coverage. Here is an example from my home State of Oregon. Alaya Wyndham-Price lives in Oswego. She had insurance through her previous job as an event planner and is currently on COBRA. Six months ago, Alaya developed a tumor the size of a golf ball just below her brain, and she has had numerous tests performed by a neurologist to determine the best course of treatment. Her insurance caps treatment costs at $20,000 annually, and she has already approached $30,000 of expenses with the diagnostic tests over the last few months. Through COBRA, Alaya's insurance will renew in January, but the surgery to remove her tumor will cost about $50,000--or $30,000 over the amount her insurance will pay in 2010. So she is trying to work as much as possible--doing freelance writing, taking on projects--but on many days is too ill to do much of anything. She is scheduled to see a doctor again soon to have an expensive MRI test in November, but with every single medical visit she goes deeper into debt. This is not right, but it is common. More than half of bankruptcies in America are due to medical bills and in more than half of those situations where medical bills drive people into bankruptcy, the individuals had health insurance. No American should be driven into bankruptcy because he or she becomes sick or injured. Health care reform will end arbitrary annual and lifetime limits to make sure Americans get the care they need when they need it, not having to delay care to the next year in order to benefit from a new annual ceiling. In conclusion: The myth is that health care reform is simply about extending coverage. The truth is this: Reform will mean better, fairer, and more affordable coverage for the millions of Americans who already have insurance. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, I thank very much my colleague from Ohio, and I appreciate his advocacy for the working people of America, working to make America work for working Americans, both in terms of jobs and in terms of our health care system. I rise tonight as well to address the importance of a public option. Here is where we are right now. We are within reach of a historic opportunity to provide accessible health care to every single American, and that would be tremendous. But if that accessible health care is unaffordable, then we have not reached our goal. Right now, the cost of health care is doubling about every 6 to 7 years, and the pace is accelerating. It doubled over the last 9 years, and now it is on pace to double in 6 or 7 years. So folks who could afford insurance just a few years ago cannot afford it today, and families who can afford insurance today are not going to be able to afford it a couple years from now. So it is essential--essential--we bend the cost curve. Perhaps the most powerful instrument for bending the cost curve is the public option because it is the public option that brings competition and choice. This is as American as apple pie. competition and choice result in better service and lower costs. Much of our Nation--our health care consumers--do not have a real choice. A couple companies dominate the market, dictate the terms, deny folks coverage, or drop coverage. So doesn't it concern all of us a little that after someone has paid their premiums for a decade or 15 years or 20 years, and they get really sick, the insurance company says: We are not renewing your insurance? That certainly is not a health care system. When you do not have choices, you do not have improved service, you do not have lower costs. But a public option changes that equation because it introduces real competition in every health care market in America. It adds another choice for our citizens in every health care market in America. This is important to stress. This is a choice. My colleague from Ohio pointed out this point, but I will point it out again. Sometimes as to the idea of introducing a community health plan or a public option, it is attacked by saying: What does government do well? Why would we want a plan from the government? Then the same critics turn around and say: The government is going to create a public option that is going to work so well it is going to drive every other option out of existence. You cannot have it both ways, and neither extreme is accurate. We have seen this idea work in many States in related areas. For example, in the State of Oregon, 20 years ago, Oregon's workers' compensation market was a mess. It is a form of insurance, and it is a form of health insurance. It is a form of insurance for workers on the job. We made reforms to that market in the last 20 years, including a redesigned public option that resulted in premium rates that are today less than half of what those rates were 20 years ago. Let me repeat that. As a result of our reforms with a redesigned public option in Oregon's workers' compensation market in the last 20 years, it has resulted in premium rates today that are less than half of what they were 20 years ago. That is the result of introducing competition. That is the result of introducing choice. The public option for workers' compensation was successful. It came under fire from insurers who did not like competition. But it was our business community that stepped up and saved it. Think how powerful it is for the success of a business to have good service and low premiums on workers' compensation. Translate that: how important it is to the success of our families to have good service and low premiums in their family health care premiums. The public option in workers' compensation has been an economic development tool for the State of Oregon. During the last downturn, we recruited Amy's Kitchen--an organic food producer--into southern Oregon because they could save $2 million a year in workers' compensation rates from the place they were formerly doing business. Well, this is what we need to do with health care. We need to have competition in every corner of this country. We need to have choice in every corner of this country. We need to empower consumers by giving them a community health option or a public option. Madam President, I am pleased to speak to the public option tonight, and I look forward to comments from my colleagues. I thank Senator Brown from Ohio.

Mr. MERKLEY

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

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, this morning I rise to make a few remarks in support of the nomination of Tom Perez as Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division. Mr. Perez is an exceptionally qualified nominee. His nomination was reported out of the Judiciary Committee on a strong bipartisan vote of 17 to 2. He has the backing of a bipartisan group of former heads of the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division, the backing of State attorneys general, and the backing of other elected officials. His varied experience will serve him well in many aspects of this position. He was a career employee with the Civil Rights Division for 10 years and understands the importance of enforcing the law without regard to politics. He has taken on racially motivated crime through the prosecution of White supremacists who went on a fatal crime spree in Lubbock, TX, and the perpetrators of cross burning designed to intimidate an interracial family. Mr. Perez served as Director of the Office for Civil Rights at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, where he worked to expand opportunities for individuals with disabilities to receive care and treatment in community-based settings rather than institutions and helped develop landmark medical records privacy regulation. He was a special counselor to Senator Ted Kennedy. Currently, Mr. Perez serves as Maryland's Secretary of Labor, Licensing, and Regulation. In this position, he enforces workplace safety laws, protects consumers through the enforcement of a wide range of consumer rights laws, and collaborates with businesses and workers to address critical workforce development needs. It is hard to imagine anyone better prepared to serve as the Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division. Mr. Perez has firsthand experience fighting racially motivated crimes. Mr. Perez has firsthand experience standing up for the disabled and patient privacy. He has firsthand experience protecting the rights of workers and consumers. I urge my colleagues to move expeditiously to confirm this nomination and put a man of rare and extensive experience in charge of the Civil Rights Division for the benefit of all of our citizens. Thank you, Mr. President. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, today I wish to honor Dr. Michael Posner, Professor Emeritus, Department of Psychology, Institute of Cognitive and Decision Sciences at the University of Oregon. Dr. Michael Posner is one of nine scientists awarded the prestigious National Medal of Science award this year by President Barack Obama. Dr. Posner received both his bachelor's degree in physics and his master's degree in psychology from the University of Washington in Seattle. In 1962, he received his doctorate in psychology from the University of Michigan. Dr. Posner joined the University of Oregon in 1965 and ever since has inspired students and impressed colleagues. Dr. Posner is a pioneer in the field of cognitive science and neuroscience and has won numerous awards. His groundbreaking research on brain development and how the brain processes thought have been recognized by numerous organizations such as the American Psychological Association and the National Academy of Sciences. Dr. Posner has dedicated his career to researching how the brain functions and most recently, on attentional networks in children and infants. He has made invaluable contributions to our medical, educational, and scientific communities. I am proud that Dr. Posner's groundbreaking work at the University of Oregon is helping put our State at the forefront of developing innovative medical and scientific research. I encourage my fellow Oregonians to join me in celebrating the innovative spirit of Dr. Posner and the entire University of Oregon faculty for their cutting-edge scientific research. Generations of Americans are in debt to Dr. Posner for his breakthroughs that have improved their lives. This recognition for his lifetime of achievement is well-earned. I hope that his example can inspire our State and our Nation to renew our commitment to education and academic research.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. I thank the Senator very much for his comments and his emphasis on making the best use of every dollar while addressing ethnic disparities in our health care system and the dire need to invest in prevention and wellness. Next, we will hear from Senator Jeanne Shaheen from New Hampshire. As Governor of New Hampshire, Senator Shaheen enacted the New Hampshire Children's Health Insurance Program, which provides affordable health and dental coverage to tens of thousands of children in her State. She also initiated a senior prescription drug program, providing seniors with lower cost prescription drugs. I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from New Hampshire.

Mr. MERKLEY. I thank the Senator. I appreciate his pointing out how health care costs are also a factor in the rising deficit contributing to the national debt and challenging our international competitiveness in the world. I now turn to Senator Mark Begich of Alaska. As mayor of Anchorage, he was committed to protecting and strengthening the health care needs of small businesses and has continued his advocacy in the Senate. I yield 4 minutes to Senator Begich.