Mark Udall

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, there will be no rollcall votes on Monday. The next rollcall vote will be at 12:15 p.m. Tuesday, March 2, on the motion to invoke cloture on the nomination of Barbara Keenan to be U.S. circuit judge for the Fourth Circuit.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 2 p.m., Monday, March 1; 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 proceed to a period of morning business until 3 p.m., with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each; that following morning business, the Senate proceed to the consideration of H.R. 4213, as provided for under the previous order.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to improve the management our public lands by increasing the fines and penalties associated with violations of law--and regulation--governing the use of these lands. Throughout the west, and especially in Colorado, increased growth and development has resulted in an expanded use and enjoyment of our public lands. These uses have, in some cases, stressed the capacity of the public land agencies to adequately control and manage such uses. As a result, many of our public lands are being damaged. While most users are responsible and law-abiding, some either knowingly or inadvertently violate these rules and damage these precious natural resources, which harms wildlife, increases run-off and sediment loading in rivers and streams, diminishes the enjoyment of other users, and impacts sensitive high-alpine tundra, desert soils, and wetlands. In addition, as we have seen over the past decade, the careless use of fire can catastrophically damage homes and habitat, and can result in the tragic loss of life. Often times, when these violations occur, the federal public land agencies do not have the authority to charge fines commensurate with the damage that results. For example, under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, the Bureau of Land Management is limited to a fine of $1,000 no matter how great the damage. That figure has remained unchanged for a quarter of a century, and does not reflect the fact that in many cases the damage from violations will cost thousands more to repair. The bill I am introducing today would provide for increased fines for such knowing violations to $100,000, and possible imprisonment, and for other non-willful violations to $5,000. The bill is similar to one that I cosponsored in previous Congresses. The need for this legislation was demonstrated by incidents in several states, including some in Colorado. For example, in the summer of 2000, two recreational off-road vehicles ignored closure signs while four-wheel driving on Bureau of Land Management land high above Silverton, CO. As a result, they got stuck for five days on a 70 percent slope at 12,500 feet along the flanks of Houghton Mountain. At first, they abandoned their vehicles. Then, they returned with others to pull them out of the mud and off the mountain. The result was significant damage to the high alpine tundra, a delicate ecosystem that may take thousands of years to recover. As noted in a Denver Post story about this incident, ``alpine plant life has evolved to withstand freezing temperatures, nearly year-round frost, drought, high winds and intense solar radiation, but it's helpless against big tires.'' Despite the extent of the damage, the violators were only fined $600 apiece--hardly adequate to restore the area, or to deter others. Another example was an event in the mountains near Boulder, CO, that became popularly known as the ``mudfest.'' Two Denver radio personalities announced that they were going to take their off-road four-wheel drive vehicles for a weekend's outing on an area of private property along an existing access road used by recreational off-road vehicles. Their on-air announcement resulted in hundreds of people showing up and driving their vehicles in a sensitive wetland area, an area that is prime habitat of the endangered boreal toad. As a result, seven acres of wetland were destroyed and another 18 acres were seriously damaged. Estimates of the costs to repair the damage ranged from $66,000 to hundreds of thousands of dollars. Most of the ``mudfest'' damage occurred on private property. However, to get to those lands the off-road vehicle users had to cross a portion of the Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forest--but the Forest Service only assessed a $50 fine to the two radio disc jockeys for not securing a special use permit to cross the lands. Again, this fine is not commensurate to the seriousness of the violation or the damage that ensued, and is an ineffective deterrent for future similar behavior. These are but two examples. And these violations are not just limited to off-road vehicle use. Regrettably, there have been many more such examples not only in Colorado but also throughout the west from a range of public land uses. These examples underscore the nature of the problem that this bill would address. If we are to deter such activity and recover the damaged lands, we need to increase the authorities of the federal public land agencies. My bill would do just that. Specifically, it would amend the Federal Lands Policy and Management Act and other relevant laws governing the Forest Service, the National Park Service, and the Fish and Wildlife Service to authorize these agencies to assess greater fines on those who violate laws and regulations governing the use of these special lands. The bill would authorize the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to assess up to $100,000 in fines, or up to 12 months in jail, or both, for violations of these laws and regulations. In addition, the bill establishes that any reckless use of fire on these public lands shall be punishable by fines of no less than $500. This bill augments another bill, S. 720, the Federal Land Restoration, Enhancement, Public Education, and Information Resources Act or the Federal Land REPAIR Act, which I have introduced this session with my colleague Senator Bennet. S. 720 would authorize the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to apply any funds acquired from violations to the area that was damaged or affected by such violations, and to increase public awareness of the need for proper recreational use of our federal lands. With the increase in fines established by this bill, along with the authorization to apply these funds to restoring damaged lands under the REPAIR Act, these public land agencies could restore address impacts on these public lands. Specifically, these bills would allow the public land agencies to repair damaged wildlife habitat, replant wetland vegetation, re-vegetate scarred lands, repair trails, roadways, and embankments to stem erosion and restore riparian ecosystems, and install barriers and other security measures to help deter violations in the first place. Together, these bills can go a long way to giving the federal public land agencies the tools they need to better protect and restore these sensitive and critical lands for the use and enjoyment for generations to come. I ask my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to improve the management our public lands by increasing the fines and penalties associated with violations of law--and regulation--governing the use of these lands. Throughout the west, and especially in Colorado, increased growth and development has resulted in an expanded use and enjoyment of our public lands. These uses have, in some cases, stressed the capacity of the public land agencies to adequately control and manage such uses. As a result, many of our public lands are being damaged. While most users are responsible and law-abiding, some either knowingly or inadvertently violate these rules and damage these precious natural resources, which harms wildlife, increases run-off and sediment loading in rivers and streams, diminishes the enjoyment of other users, and impacts sensitive high-alpine tundra, desert soils, and wetlands. In addition, as we have seen over the past decade, the careless use of fire can catastrophically damage homes and habitat, and can result in the tragic loss of life. Often times, when these violations occur, the federal public land agencies do not have the authority to charge fines commensurate with the damage that results. For example, under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, the Bureau of Land Management is limited to a fine of $1,000 no matter how great the damage. That figure has remained unchanged for a quarter of a century, and does not reflect the fact that in many cases the damage from violations will cost thousands more to repair. The bill I am introducing today would provide for increased fines for such knowing violations to $100,000, and possible imprisonment, and for other non-willful violations to $5,000. The bill is similar to one that I cosponsored in previous Congresses. The need for this legislation was demonstrated by incidents in several states, including some in Colorado. For example, in the summer of 2000, two recreational off-road vehicles ignored closure signs while four-wheel driving on Bureau of Land Management land high above Silverton, CO. As a result, they got stuck for five days on a 70 percent slope at 12,500 feet along the flanks of Houghton Mountain. At first, they abandoned their vehicles. Then, they returned with others to pull them out of the mud and off the mountain. The result was significant damage to the high alpine tundra, a delicate ecosystem that may take thousands of years to recover. As noted in a Denver Post story about this incident, ``alpine plant life has evolved to withstand freezing temperatures, nearly year-round frost, drought, high winds and intense solar radiation, but it's helpless against big tires.'' Despite the extent of the damage, the violators were only fined $600 apiece--hardly adequate to restore the area, or to deter others. Another example was an event in the mountains near Boulder, CO, that became popularly known as the ``mudfest.'' Two Denver radio personalities announced that they were going to take their off-road four-wheel drive vehicles for a weekend's outing on an area of private property along an existing access road used by recreational off-road vehicles. Their on-air announcement resulted in hundreds of people showing up and driving their vehicles in a sensitive wetland area, an area that is prime habitat of the endangered boreal toad. As a result, seven acres of wetland were destroyed and another 18 acres were seriously damaged. Estimates of the costs to repair the damage ranged from $66,000 to hundreds of thousands of dollars. Most of the ``mudfest'' damage occurred on private property. However, to get to those lands the off-road vehicle users had to cross a portion of the Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forest--but the Forest Service only assessed a $50 fine to the two radio disc jockeys for not securing a special use permit to cross the lands. Again, this fine is not commensurate to the seriousness of the violation or the damage that ensued, and is an ineffective deterrent for future similar behavior. These are but two examples. And these violations are not just limited to off-road vehicle use. Regrettably, there have been many more such examples not only in Colorado but also throughout the west from a range of public land uses. These examples underscore the nature of the problem that this bill would address. If we are to deter such activity and recover the damaged lands, we need to increase the authorities of the federal public land agencies. My bill would do just that. Specifically, it would amend the Federal Lands Policy and Management Act and other relevant laws governing the Forest Service, the National Park Service, and the Fish and Wildlife Service to authorize these agencies to assess greater fines on those who violate laws and regulations governing the use of these special lands. The bill would authorize the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to assess up to $100,000 in fines, or up to 12 months in jail, or both, for violations of these laws and regulations. In addition, the bill establishes that any reckless use of fire on these public lands shall be punishable by fines of no less than $500. This bill augments another bill, S. 720, the Federal Land Restoration, Enhancement, Public Education, and Information Resources Act or the Federal Land REPAIR Act, which I have introduced this session with my colleague Senator Bennet. S. 720 would authorize the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to apply any funds acquired from violations to the area that was damaged or affected by such violations, and to increase public awareness of the need for proper recreational use of our federal lands. With the increase in fines established by this bill, along with the authorization to apply these funds to restoring damaged lands under the REPAIR Act, these public land agencies could restore address impacts on these public lands. Specifically, these bills would allow the public land agencies to repair damaged wildlife habitat, replant wetland vegetation, re-vegetate scarred lands, repair trails, roadways, and embankments to stem erosion and restore riparian ecosystems, and install barriers and other security measures to help deter violations in the first place. Together, these bills can go a long way to giving the federal public land agencies the tools they need to better protect and restore these sensitive and critical lands for the use and enjoyment for generations to come. I ask my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr President, I rise to acknowledge the great contributions of Colorado's African-American community in celebration of Black History Month. Colorado's African-American community has a long history in our State. From the days of its settlement to modern times, Colorado has benefited from the Black community's hard work and dedication to making Colorado a better place to live. In contemporary times, we often forget about the diversity of settlers that moved West during the expansion of the United States. But, Black settlers played an active and productive role in the formation of the American West. Many of these settlers found their freedom by moving West and became entrepreneurs, traders, and leaders that helped in the formation of Colorado as a territory and State. Names of early African-American westerners, such as James Beckwourth and ``Aunt'' Clara Brown, echo through Colorado history. James Beckwourth was a true frontiersman, leading expeditions into Colorado's Rocky Mountains in the 1820s and returning later in the 1830s to serve at Fort Vasquez near Denver. In the 1840s, he cofounded a fort and settlement named Pueblo so he could enter the lucrative trade business along the Santa Fe Trail. This settlement eventually became the city of Pueblo and still serves as a commercial hub for southeast Colorado. ``Aunt'' Clara Brown is another strong African-American figure who fled slavery to establish an independent life in the West. When she reached Colorado in the 1860s, she found a place that rewarded hard work. She earned her living laundering the clothes of miners in Central City and served her community by helping others in need regardless of their race. She was a woman who valued a commitment to her community and to providing opportunity to those who lacked the resources to access it. These individuals--and countless others--are real examples of the early contributions of African Americans in Colorado and throughout the American West. Yet I do not speak of these individuals so their stories remain in history books or museums, but instead to highlight the continuing efforts and contributions of Colorado's Black community to our State. From the time that James Beckwourth and ``Aunt'' Clara Brown made their way to Colorado along with other Black men, women and children until present day, there have been many other community leaders, public officials, and entrepreneurs who have overcome the struggles of progress. They rose above the challenges of frontier life and those hard times of the great depression. They joined many others to mine Colorado's mineral wealth and forge the steel of Colorado's railways to contribute to Colorado's burgeoning economy. They have fought in every major American war to protect a collective freedom that for so many years they were denied. And they have risen in solidarity to defend the civil rights of every American citizen regardless of the color of their skin. Today, I am proud to see Colorado's African-American community continue as a vibrant force in our State, just as they can be found in our history. As I marched recently in Denver's annual Martin Luther King, Jr. ``marade,'' I was reminded of Dr. King's dream of a nation where people are not judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. We have made much progress in working to fulfill Dr. King's dream; and it was evident to me, that his message is still being heard. Mr. President, I hope all Coloradans and Americans can reflect on the contributions of African Americans of our State and throughout our great Nation not only during the Black History Month but in every month of the year.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam President, I want to start out by acknowledging the tremendous leadership of Senator Gregg and Senator Conrad. Their work together is a breath of fresh air in a town that, unfortunately, has become polarized over these last months. But the amendment today before us is a chance to start anew. In that spirit, I rise today in support of the Conrad-Gregg amendment of which I am an original cosponsor. As we have heard, the amendment would create a bipartisan task force to comb through the Federal budget and then make recommendations for reining in our annual exploding deficits. In this light, I also applaud President Obama's call yesterday for a 3-year freeze in Federal discretionary spending. This is a bold announcement. The President has made clear he has heard the American people, including those from Colorado who have asked that the Federal Government get control over its ever-increasing deficits and debt. Deficit spending, kept as a manageable percentage of our economic output, is one thing, but a deficit of the magnitude that we now face is not sustainable. The trajectory we are on makes our current annual deficit look like peanuts. We are at, in sum, a critical point in our Nation's economic history. If we fail to address this issue now, the Federal deficit will have significant economic ramifications in the short run, as Senator Gregg has pointed out, and it will severely undermine the prospects for our children and our grandchildren in the long run. Our exploding debt could drive disastrous inflation and leave future generations with fewer resources to invest in, among other things, infrastructure and education. My colleague from Colorado, Senator Bennet, put it in perspective when he said: Each and every Coloradan today owes $40,000 to our national debt. In addition, American taxpayers last year put forward $250 billion to our creditors just for interest payments on our debt. Think what that $250 billion could have done if it was not directed to those interest payments. If we do nothing, by the year 2019 the American taxpayers will owe over $700 billion in annual interest alone. That is more than we spent last year to fund two wars and finance all of our other defense responsibilities. So we have a daunting challenge. We need to spur job creation, spend wisely, and also chart a course for a balanced Federal budget. Our government, as Senator Bennet pointed out, should live by the same budgeting rules hard-working Colorado families live by every day. It makes no difference what your political party is, commonsense budgeting is just good policy. In the coming days I look forward to hearing more about President Obama's proposals to put a freeze in place. I want to study the budget the White House will send us too. I am going to keep fighting for other solutions, practical solutions, to restoring fiscal responsibility, such as tough statutory pay-go rules, earmark reform, a line-item veto authority for the President, and offering the Conrad-Gregg fiscal task force that is before us today. Unfortunately, as is often the case, partisan politics continues to get in the way of pragmatic solutions, and there has been more interest in casting blame for deficit spending than breaking the mold and trying a new approach. Well, I have something to say today. Both parties are responsible for the present situation. So let's quit pointing fingers and let's go to work and bridge our political divides. We can do that by putting in place this bipartisanship fiscal task force to review the entire budget and then force us to take a vote on those recommendations. It will be a hard pill to swallow, but it is medicine that we need to take. In today's political atmosphere, it is unfortunate that the Democrats and Republicans have a hard time finding common ground. But this Gregg-Conrad Commission provides a strong example of how we indeed can and must work together on bipartisan solutions to meet our Nation's most pressing problems. Coloradans, I know, expect no less from me or from Senator Bennet. The fact that President Obama has signaled his strong support for this amendment underlines the critical importance of this effort. Back in Colorado, back in New Hampshire, back in North Dakota, and throughout the rest of the United States, families are tightening their belts, living within their means, and paying down their own personal debt. When they look at Washington, all they see is partisan bickering and exploding national debt, and no efforts to find viable solutions. So, in my opinion, and the opinion of many Senators, the best and perhaps the only way to effectively address this potential calamity of a tsunami of debt is through a special process such as that being proposed by Senators Conrad and Gregg. I urge my fellow Senators to support this amendment. We can move ahead in a responsible and important way. I yield the floor.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, due to the fact that I was ill and concerned for others traveling on the same airplane to Washington, DC, I was unable to cast a vote for rollcall No. 1 in the second session of the 111th Congress, the nomination of Beverly Baldwin Martin, of Georgia, to be a U.S. Circuit Judge for the 111th Circuit. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' to confirm the nominee.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Montana for yielding. I thank him for his tremendous leadership on this important fight here on the floor of the Senate. First, I commend my colleagues for strapping on their snow gear. The Presiding Officer comes from the State of Minnesota, where this kind of a storm we have had over the last few days is not that unusual a development. I like a good 16-inch dusting from time to time. We all know what an important issue reforming our health care system is, and braving the elements is a small price to pay. I have come to the floor a lot over the past few months to discuss the challenges that are facing us as we work toward fixing our broken health care system. One overarching theme I continue to emphasize is just how important this is to putting our economy back on track. We have a bloated $12 trillion Federal debt which is being fed daily by growing health care costs. Every day, employers, small and large, are laying off workers and slashing benefits for their employees. Great American businesses, especially in our manufacturing sector, have nearly collapsed because of the rising costs of providing health care for their workers. Those Americans who have coverage lack the peace of mind in knowing that their insurance will be there just when they need it. This lack of stability and peace of mind is a fundamental problem with the status quo today because it takes away one of the things valued most by Americans: their freedom. Today, they are reluctant to move to a new job, to advance their education, or start a small business for fear they won't be able to provide health care for their families. As we struggle to mend our economy, we can't afford to tell people to stay put. We know from history that encouraging the entrepreneurial spirit of Americans is the key to promoting small business, creating jobs, and driving our economic recovery. Small businesses have accounted for 65 percent of all new jobs created in the past 15 years, but today anyone who owns or has ever tried to start their own business can attest to why rising health care costs is such a major problem in this country. Take, for example, the story of a gentleman who just recently contacted me from Denver. I will pick up on the theme the Senator from Ohio was touching upon. If we listened to the people in our States, there would be no question that this reform is necessary. Dave is a small business owner. Last year, he saw his insurance premiums skyrocket 27 percent for his employees. When he questioned this unbelievable increase, his insurance company said all he needed to do to save money was just stop offering coverage to his employees. Just let them buy their own insurance, his insurance company told him. When he looked into that, when he checked it out, he found out that nearly half of his workforce would be ineligible for coverage because of preexisting conditions and that those who could obtain coverage were priced out and couldn't even afford it. I hear this story time and time again--small business owners who want to do the right thing but end up facing annual double-digit increases in their costs. This is so troubling in this economic time because small businesses pay on average 18 percent more than large employers for the same level of coverage. The status quo--and the Presiding Officer has been articulate and eloquent and involved in this fight--as he knows, is unacceptable, and we can't kick the can down the road any longer. The good news is the legislation we are considering contains essential provisions aimed at helping small businesses, individuals, and American families across our country. Let me touch on a few of the important provisions that are in this final package. Health insurers will be organized into well-regulated marketplaces and finally forced to compete. This would then involve a creation of a more transparent process for individuals and small businesses, so, for the first time, you can actually compare insurance plans side by side. The legislation helps individuals pay for these newfound health insurance options. More than half of the cost of reform goes to financing tax credits to put money back in the pockets of middle-class families to help them purchase a health plan. As Chairman Baucus has pointed out, these tax credits represent the biggest tax cut since 2001. In addition, starting in 2010, many small businesses will also qualify for new tax credits worth up to 50 percent of the cost of providing health insurance to their employees. Also in this bill--I can't emphasize this enough--Americans will no longer go bankrupt because of health care costs. We are the only developed country in the world where citizens go bankrupt because they have health care costs they can't afford. Insurers will be prohibited from denying access to health care because of preexisting conditions, limiting coverage because of age or gender, or dropping the insurance someone has already paid for simply because they get sick. Regardless of what we hear from our friends on the other side of the aisle, this legislation saves money, it strengthens Medicare, it reduces the deficit, and it puts us on a path to finally addressing our growing national debt. In fact, noted MIT economist Jon Gruber estimates this bill will save small businesses 25 percent, or about $65 billion per year, on health insurance. That translates into $30 billion in take-home pay and an estimated 80,000 saved jobs. While the bill before us makes important improvements, I would also like to say a few words about the package of amendments offered by the distinguished majority leader. I took some time, as I think we all did over the last snowy 24 hours, to familiarize myself with the changes, and I wish to touch on some of the most promising revisions that have been made. I wish to first note my appreciation for including the freshman package. These amendments were offered by myself and the freshman class, of which the Presiding Officer is a member, and they have attracted bipartisan support. They boast the endorsements of business, labor, and consumer groups. The provisions inject more cost containment in the bill, cut down on regulatory and bureaucratic redtape, and push even more aggressively toward a reformed health care system. I am particularly pleased to see a provision I worked on that would expand the scope of a new board designed to strengthen Medicare. The amendment would task this board not only to monitor Medicare but to look for ways to improve the entire health care system as a whole. I believe the independent payment advisory board is one of the best cost- containment tools in the bill, and I want to acknowledge Senator Rockefeller for his work in developing the idea, as well as Leader Reid for putting even more bite into the authority of this important panel of experts. Second, I wish to express how proud I am that Majority Leader Reid put so much emphasis in the managers' amendment on improving health care in rural America. The difficulty of accessing health care in rural communities is a unique struggle I have been increasingly concerned about, especially as I have traveled around Colorado's rural areas in the past several months. I am glad to see the inclusion of an amendment I authored to establish a rural physician pipeline training program designed to help bolster our rural health care workforce. Many of my colleagues joined me in offering this important amendment which has the potential to recruit and train more doctors to practice in rural areas. In addition, I also authored an amendment that would establish an explicitly rural element to the community transformation grant program which is aimed at helping prevent and reduce chronic disease in communities across the country. My amendment would ensure that rural areas are getting their share of this critical prevention and wellness funding, and I was very proud to see this important change included as well. As I begin to close, I wish to say that although this bill has been strengthened significantly by the majority leader's efforts, it is not perfect. But I do not think anyone expects Congress to craft a perfect piece of legislation. We could never send the President a bill that fixes all the problems in our health care system or exactly reflects the priorities of every single Member of Congress, including myself. But what I am confident of is, this legislation can establish a sturdy foundation upon which we will build, improve, and strengthen access to health care in America. Will there be mistakes made along the way? I do not doubt it. But as a lifelong mountain climber, I know from experience that the stumbles you experience along the way are a necessary part of reaching any mountaintop. Providing insurance and quality care for all our citizens is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to improve the health and well- being of every American. These are the goals of our health insurance reform and, over the next few days, I look forward to passing a bill which modernizes our health care delivery system, increases much needed choice and competition in the health insurance industry, and helps put our economy back on track, while improving the financial security of middle-class working families. I yield the floor.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

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

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 2 p.m., Monday, December 14; 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 proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each, with the Republicans controlling the first 30 minutes, and the majority controlling the next 30 minutes.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, my freshman colleagues and I have come to the floor on a regular basis over the last few months to make clear to both sides of the aisle just how critical it is that we succeed in reforming our health care insurance system. Right now, too many Americans lack the freedom to move to a new job, further their education, or start a small business because doing so can put them at risk of losing health care coverage for their family. If you think about it, freedom is, after all, about choices. What motivates me--and I know it motivates my freshman colleagues--is the desire to preserve and enhance the freedom of all Americans. This legislation we have been debating and amending over the past 2 weeks can and should be a vehicle that we use to enhance freedom for all of our American citizens. We are going to repair and modernize a broken health care system. If we fail to do so, we perpetuate an antiquated status quo that stalls economic growth, stifle the entrepreneurs who make up the American business landscape, and keep stability and security out of reach for millions of American families. The package of amendments we present today is designed to inject more cost containment into the bill, cut down on regulatory and bureaucratic redtape, and push us more aggressively toward a reformed health care system that rewards better patient care rather than simply more care. In developing these ideas, my fellow freshmen and I have relied upon the input of people back home. And through my discussions with constituents, health care providers, and businesses from all over Colorado, a common theme has emerged: They want a health care system that tackles costs, while keeping the focus on patients and quality. I believe we have accomplished that with our freshman proposal because more than 30 groups have come out in the past few days in support of our efforts. This is a wide-ranging number of groups, including consumer champions such as AARP, business leaders such as the Business Roundtable, and health providers such as Denver Health in my home State. My freshman colleagues have spoken about individual pieces of this effort that combine to make the whole. I will single out a section that I think will have a particularly strong influence on the future of our health care system. Senator Rockefeller has authored an important provision that creates the independent Medicare advisory board. This board would be tasked with keeping down the costs in the Medicare system by issuing proposals to cut spending and increase the quality of care for beneficiaries. I applaud this contribution to the bill, but I have wondered why we cannot take it a step further by looking at the whole health care system and not just Medicare in isolation. If we are going to tackle spiraling health costs across the country, we need to push each area of our health care system to be smarter and more efficient in dealing with cost growth. One of my contributions to the package is a provision to expand the scope of the Medicare advisory board to examine not just Medicare but the entire health care system and task the board with finding ways to slow down the growth of health costs across the country. This would include providing recommendations on the steps the private sector should take to make our delivery system more efficient. Health care leaders and economists agree that such an approach can help push our system toward a more streamlined and coordinated way of delivering health care to all Americans. In sum, I thank the Senator from Virginia for his leadership, the Senator from Oregon, Mr. Merkley, and Senator Shaheen from New Hampshire. It has been a delight to work with 11 of my fellow Senators. This is a bold contribution to the package that I know we will pass out of the Senate. We come from varying parts of the country and have varied political outlooks and backgrounds. This will attract broad support in our Chamber. It is a winning addition to health care reform, and I encourage all Senators to support our efforts. I yield the floor.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam President, today I join my colleagues in bringing this body's attention to an issue of fundamental fairness that continues to remain unaddressed. More than 10 years ago, Hispanic farmers from my home State of Colorado joined other Hispanic farmers throughout the country to stand up against injustice. They chose to confront--rather than accept-- discrimination when they filed their case against the U.S. Department of Agriculture on grounds that the Farm Service Agency denied loans and disaster benefits in violation of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and the Administrative Procedure Act. Earlier this month, I met some of these farmers in Colorado's San Luis Valley. Many of these men and women proudly trace their heritage to some of the first settlers of Colorado who were the first to till the soil of the San Luis Valley and establish Colorado's earliest farming communities, spurring the development of southern Colorado. Now, I understand that every farmer takes on enormous risk to keep our country fed and prosperous. Yet when these farmers applied for Federal assistance intended to make them whole again--assistance intended to help family farmers stay in business--the record suggests that this aid was denied or delayed, not because their request lacked merit but because of their Hispanic heritage. I found that shocking. It wasn't any weather event that led these men and women to financial hardship or the loss of their family farm. The obstacles they faced when applying for a loan or disaster assistance were far worse than any drought, flood, hail or windstorm they had ever confronted. It was discrimination based on their heritage that kept them from receiving timely support from an agency whose mission is to support all of America's farmers equally. Evidence of discriminatory practices in the U.S. Department of Agriculture is an unfortunate and shameful part of our history. On several occasions, I have joined my colleagues in the Senate and in the House to express our desire to bring this disgraceful chapter to a close. During the most recent debate on America's 2008 farm bill, we affirmed that it is the sense of Congress that all pending claims and class actions brought against the Department of Agriculture by socially disadvantaged farmers or ranchers be resolved in an expeditious and just manner. I would like to acknowledge that Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack has been courageous in this matter, and I am pleased that the administration views this as a priority. I am also pleased that the Secretary has expressed his intent to ensure that no other farmers experience the same discrimination and that he will take definitive action to improve USDA's record on civil rights. I remain ready and willing to work with the administration and my colleagues to support this policy. I want to emphasize that this is an issue of fundamental fairness. The sooner we can resolve this, the sooner we can look forward to a USDA that serves all Americans equally. It is my hope that these cases be resolved expeditiously and fairly so that the farmers and their families who have suffered the real effects of discrimination can finally put this matter to rest.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam President, I rise in support of the motion that has been made by the senior Senator from Connecticut, which requests consent for the Credit Card Rate Freeze Act. I wish to associate myself with his remarks. I am a proud original cosponsor of his bill. I wish to urge, as our chairman has, our friends on the other side of the aisle to lift their holds on this important legislation. Credit card companies have forced unfair and abusive practices on American consumers for too long. I have fought for several years and introduced a number of bills that would put an end to these practices. We passed a law this year that will level the playing field for consumers and put an end to the worst abuses by February of next year. Let me tell my colleagues what has been happening since then. Credit card companies are using that time before the new law goes into effect to get rate and fee hikes in under the wire. It is happening at the worst time possible, as the chairman pointed out. American families are struggling in a recessionary period. The last thing our families need is higher interest rates and extra fees, especially on consumers who are already playing by the rules. This has been a classic case of a David versus Goliath situation. I say it is time to take on Goliath and stop credit card companies from gaming the system at the expense of American consumers. This bill Chairman Dodd and I are supporting would provide consumers and small businesses who play by the rules a better foundation to pay off their debts, or to buy groceries and business supplies, and most important, they should get fair treatment from the credit card companies. This is a critically important bill for economic recovery. It is the right thing to do. I urge my friends on the other side of the aisle to join us and allow it to move forward.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, today I am introducing, along with my colleague Senator Risch, the National Forest Insect and Disease Emergency Act of 2009. This bipartisan bill will provide additional tools and resources to the U.S. Forest Service to help address a serious natural disaster in many western forests--the deaths of millions of acres of trees due to insect infestations. This is an issue of long-standing concern in the West and of the utmost importance. Since my very first days in Congress nearly 11 years ago, I have been fighting for Colorado's forest health. This day has been a long time in coming for me, but it is by no means the end of the fight. We still have a long way to go in combating this problem, and it is a fight I intend to see to the end. The bill that Senator Risch and I are introducing today addresses any and all insect and disease outbreaks in our national forests. But this bill is in direct response to an especially pronounced epidemic of bark beetles in western States. This epidemic is creating serious concerns in our communities regarding our forested regions, the recreational economy of these areas, and water supplies and infrastructure that exist on these lands. In essence, this bill is about securing our communities from a natural threat--a threat that is as potentially devastating and disruptive as a hurricane or an earthquake. This threat is a function of both human actions and natural processes--especially global climate change. I recently had the chance to show one of our colleagues the devastating impact of the bark beetle epidemic. Senator John McCain joined me at a hearing of the National Parks Subcommittee, which I chair, in August in Estes Park, CO. Senator McCain and I saw firsthand the march of the bark beetle as it is making its way through Rocky Mountain National Park. We were both struck by the extent of dead trees colored rust red by this insect. Bark beetles and other insects that feed on trees are a natural part of the forest ecology. When present at normal levels, they provide benefits to the forest ecology by thinning dense tree stands, creating openings for wildlife, and promoting cyclical regrowth. Today, various parts of the U.S.--but especially western States-- continue to experience unnaturally large-scale infestations of bark beetles and other insects that have resulted from past policies and warming climate conditions. Recent periods of drought have weakened the trees on Forest Service land and caused the trees to be more susceptible to fire and insects. In addition, population growth on land adjacent to Forest Service land has exacerbated the threats posed by insect-killed trees by placing large numbers of citizens, homes, and businesses at greater risk of catastrophic wildland fire. And because hundreds of miles of power transmission lines and dozens of communication sites are surrounded by dead trees that will fall due to rotted root systems, the probability that trees will fall on power transmission lines, thereby resulting in wildfires and power transmission disruptions for long periods of time, has substantially increased. Falling dead trees are also a hazard along hundreds of miles of roads and trails, threatening the safety of motorists and recreationists and disrupting access to, and through, Forest Service land. Hundreds of developed recreation sites, including campgrounds, picnic areas, and trailheads, contain dead trees that threaten recreationists. If these dead trees are not removed, these developed recreation sites will need to be closed to preserve public safety. We are in fact experiencing these closures in Colorado. Moreover, parcels of Forest Service land in many locations contain headwaters of water supplies for many communities. Severe wildfires that remove vegetative cover pose a threat to the quantity and quality of water by exposing soil to erosion, thereby causing a transfer of sediment to rivers, reservoirs, and water conveyance systems. In other words, the fire threats posed by these dead trees can have serious implications to providing water not only to local communities, but also to major cities downstream that rely upon rivers and streams flowing from forested mountain regions. All of these concerns demand that we take action to help address these threats. That is what this bipartisan bill does. It does so by establishing ``insect emergency areas''--that is, areas defined by the Forest Service as experiencing significant tree mortality that results in increased wildfire threats and risks to people and infrastructure from falling dead trees. These areas would be in the States from the Rocky Mountains to the Pacific coast, States that are experiencing large-scale insect outbreaks. Within these areas, the Forest Service would be directed to provide priority treatment to reduce these threats. The Forest Service would also be allowed to apply funds from the Agricultural Credit Act program, which compensates individuals for removing biomass for productive uses, towards the removal of beetle-killed trees. The bill also provides incentives to convert this removed vegetation into biofuels. It allows the Forest Service to apply the streamlined National Environmental Policy Act provisions to expedite environmental analysis of the treatment work that is urgently needed in these high-priority emergency areas. In addition to this focus on emergency areas the bill authorizes an important tool to help communities respond to wildfire threats on nearby Forest Service land. The States of Colorado and Utah have had the benefit of this tool since it was provided by Congress in 2000. This tool, called the ``Good Neighbor Authority,'' allows the Forest Service to contract with state foresters to enter Forest Service lands and implement treatments to reduce threats next to homes and private property whose owners have, in many cases, removed dead trees and performed treatments on their own property adjacent to Forest Service land. This program has been very successful, and the bill we are introducing today will allow all states to benefit from this authority and make it permanent law. The bill also helps the Forest Service more effectively implement ``stewardship contracting'' as a tool for fuels treatment work. This contracting, which is distinct from traditional timber sale contracts, allows the Forest Service to fashion agreements to perform treatment for trees--like insect-killed trees--that may not have high commercial value. This program has also been extremely successful in helping to reduce fire threats in areas that do not possess high commercially valued timber. However, the Forest Service has not had the funding it needs to use this tool more extensively. As a result, the bill would make this ``stewardship contracting'' program permanent, and it would eliminate the requirement that the Forest Service set aside funds in the very unlikely event that it would have to cancel these contracts and pay back the contractors. The bill would authorize the Forest Service to use other funds to cancel these contracts as well as seek appropriations to pay for any contract cancellations. In so doing, the bill will help make this tool more available and allow more funds to be applied to urgently needed, on-the-ground treatment work. I have been working with Colorado communities, the Forest Service and stakeholders since 2000 on forest health issues and responding to this bark beetle threat. I have supported providing additional tools and resources to the Forest Service to respond to this threat, such as the Healthy Forest Restoration Act, and focusing increased funds in the high hazard wildland/urban interface near communities. This bill is an effort to continue providing such tools and resources so that we can reduce the impacts to people and property, reduce loss of life fighting catastrophic wildfires, and promote a more healthy forest ecosystem. I am relieved that we in Colorado did not experience a serious wildfire season this year like we have experienced in years past--and like we will probably face in the years ahead. But we must be ready to respond to these fires that will inevitably come. This bill takes a step in that direction. It will not solve all issues related to forest health or stop all fires. Fire is a necessary part of our forests. But the bill will help us reduce threats and promote healthy ecosystems and economies. I look forward to working with my colleagues from both sides of the aisle in seeing this bill passed. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a bill summary be printed in the Record.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, today I am introducing, along with my colleague Senator Risch, the National Forest Insect and Disease Emergency Act of 2009. This bipartisan bill will provide additional tools and resources to the U.S. Forest Service to help address a serious natural disaster in many western forests--the deaths of millions of acres of trees due to insect infestations. This is an issue of long-standing concern in the West and of the utmost importance. Since my very first days in Congress nearly 11 years ago, I have been fighting for Colorado's forest health. This day has been a long time in coming for me, but it is by no means the end of the fight. We still have a long way to go in combating this problem, and it is a fight I intend to see to the end. The bill that Senator Risch and I are introducing today addresses any and all insect and disease outbreaks in our national forests. But this bill is in direct response to an especially pronounced epidemic of bark beetles in western States. This epidemic is creating serious concerns in our communities regarding our forested regions, the recreational economy of these areas, and water supplies and infrastructure that exist on these lands. In essence, this bill is about securing our communities from a natural threat--a threat that is as potentially devastating and disruptive as a hurricane or an earthquake. This threat is a function of both human actions and natural processes--especially global climate change. I recently had the chance to show one of our colleagues the devastating impact of the bark beetle epidemic. Senator John McCain joined me at a hearing of the National Parks Subcommittee, which I chair, in August in Estes Park, CO. Senator McCain and I saw firsthand the march of the bark beetle as it is making its way through Rocky Mountain National Park. We were both struck by the extent of dead trees colored rust red by this insect. Bark beetles and other insects that feed on trees are a natural part of the forest ecology. When present at normal levels, they provide benefits to the forest ecology by thinning dense tree stands, creating openings for wildlife, and promoting cyclical regrowth. Today, various parts of the U.S.--but especially western States-- continue to experience unnaturally large-scale infestations of bark beetles and other insects that have resulted from past policies and warming climate conditions. Recent periods of drought have weakened the trees on Forest Service land and caused the trees to be more susceptible to fire and insects. In addition, population growth on land adjacent to Forest Service land has exacerbated the threats posed by insect-killed trees by placing large numbers of citizens, homes, and businesses at greater risk of catastrophic wildland fire. And because hundreds of miles of power transmission lines and dozens of communication sites are surrounded by dead trees that will fall due to rotted root systems, the probability that trees will fall on power transmission lines, thereby resulting in wildfires and power transmission disruptions for long periods of time, has substantially increased. Falling dead trees are also a hazard along hundreds of miles of roads and trails, threatening the safety of motorists and recreationists and disrupting access to, and through, Forest Service land. Hundreds of developed recreation sites, including campgrounds, picnic areas, and trailheads, contain dead trees that threaten recreationists. If these dead trees are not removed, these developed recreation sites will need to be closed to preserve public safety. We are in fact experiencing these closures in Colorado. Moreover, parcels of Forest Service land in many locations contain headwaters of water supplies for many communities. Severe wildfires that remove vegetative cover pose a threat to the quantity and quality of water by exposing soil to erosion, thereby causing a transfer of sediment to rivers, reservoirs, and water conveyance systems. In other words, the fire threats posed by these dead trees can have serious implications to providing water not only to local communities, but also to major cities downstream that rely upon rivers and streams flowing from forested mountain regions. All of these concerns demand that we take action to help address these threats. That is what this bipartisan bill does. It does so by establishing ``insect emergency areas''--that is, areas defined by the Forest Service as experiencing significant tree mortality that results in increased wildfire threats and risks to people and infrastructure from falling dead trees. These areas would be in the States from the Rocky Mountains to the Pacific coast, States that are experiencing large-scale insect outbreaks. Within these areas, the Forest Service would be directed to provide priority treatment to reduce these threats. The Forest Service would also be allowed to apply funds from the Agricultural Credit Act program, which compensates individuals for removing biomass for productive uses, towards the removal of beetle-killed trees. The bill also provides incentives to convert this removed vegetation into biofuels. It allows the Forest Service to apply the streamlined National Environmental Policy Act provisions to expedite environmental analysis of the treatment work that is urgently needed in these high-priority emergency areas. In addition to this focus on emergency areas the bill authorizes an important tool to help communities respond to wildfire threats on nearby Forest Service land. The States of Colorado and Utah have had the benefit of this tool since it was provided by Congress in 2000. This tool, called the ``Good Neighbor Authority,'' allows the Forest Service to contract with state foresters to enter Forest Service lands and implement treatments to reduce threats next to homes and private property whose owners have, in many cases, removed dead trees and performed treatments on their own property adjacent to Forest Service land. This program has been very successful, and the bill we are introducing today will allow all states to benefit from this authority and make it permanent law. The bill also helps the Forest Service more effectively implement ``stewardship contracting'' as a tool for fuels treatment work. This contracting, which is distinct from traditional timber sale contracts, allows the Forest Service to fashion agreements to perform treatment for trees--like insect-killed trees--that may not have high commercial value. This program has also been extremely successful in helping to reduce fire threats in areas that do not possess high commercially valued timber. However, the Forest Service has not had the funding it needs to use this tool more extensively. As a result, the bill would make this ``stewardship contracting'' program permanent, and it would eliminate the requirement that the Forest Service set aside funds in the very unlikely event that it would have to cancel these contracts and pay back the contractors. The bill would authorize the Forest Service to use other funds to cancel these contracts as well as seek appropriations to pay for any contract cancellations. In so doing, the bill will help make this tool more available and allow more funds to be applied to urgently needed, on-the-ground treatment work. I have been working with Colorado communities, the Forest Service and stakeholders since 2000 on forest health issues and responding to this bark beetle threat. I have supported providing additional tools and resources to the Forest Service to respond to this threat, such as the Healthy Forest Restoration Act, and focusing increased funds in the high hazard wildland/urban interface near communities. This bill is an effort to continue providing such tools and resources so that we can reduce the impacts to people and property, reduce loss of life fighting catastrophic wildfires, and promote a more healthy forest ecosystem. I am relieved that we in Colorado did not experience a serious wildfire season this year like we have experienced in years past--and like we will probably face in the years ahead. But we must be ready to respond to these fires that will inevitably come. This bill takes a step in that direction. It will not solve all issues related to forest health or stop all fires. Fire is a necessary part of our forests. But the bill will help us reduce threats and promote healthy ecosystems and economies. I look forward to working with my colleagues from both sides of the aisle in seeing this bill passed. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a bill summary be printed in the Record.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Good morning. I, too, before I speak on health care, wish to join my colleagues in congratulating Senator Byrd. I, too, am in awe of all of his accomplishments, and I, too, admire his affection for the Senate and will endeavor in my service here to model his example. I join my colleagues this morning to discuss an issue of great importance to Colorado and to me. These past few weeks, as the Presiding Officer has, along with many of us on this side of the aisle, I have spoken about comprehensive health insurance reform as a key to strengthening and securing the lives of middle-class Americans. One of the most important components of that goal is ensuring that we do everything we can to help small business owners and their employees get affordable health coverage. As the Senator from Virginia mentioned, over the last 15 years, small businesses have created over 65 percent of the new jobs in our country. Yet the power of this job creation machine is being threatened by the exploding costs of health care. It will only get worse if we don't act. If we do not pass health insurance reform, small business owners will continue to see the costs of providing benefits eat away at their bottom line. In my home State of Colorado, premium costs for small businesses are projected to more than double over the next decade. These unsustainable cost increases not only harm current businesses, but they prevent the growth of new ones. More and more would-be entrepreneurs across the country are deciding not to start their own companies due to the fear that they would not have access to affordable insurance for their families or for their employees. Unfortunately, this fear is too often justified. In the insurance market today, small businesses lack the bargaining power to get affordable rates that many large employers enjoy. They find themselves subject to unpredictable and massive spikes in premiums. That is why it is so important that we pass a health care reform bill that takes proactive steps to address the rising costs of health care. I have to tell my colleagues I have been encouraged by the proposals I have seen thus far. For example, a recent analysis of the nonpartisan CBO, the Congressional Budget Office, score of the Senate Finance Committee bill estimates that the reforms therein would save small businesses $65 billion every year for the next decade. The proposal would do this, in part, by taking steps to transform our health care delivery system to one that produces higher quality care at lower costs. It would also include tax credits specifically designed to help cash-strapped small businesses provide coverage to their employees. Additionally, new reinsurance programs would reimburse employers struggling with particularly high catastrophic costs. In addition to these probusiness proposals, we also need to make sure the market offers new and affordable options for those employers who want to offer coverage but currently cannot afford to do so. The new health insurance exchanges envisioned under the reform packages before us would permit small employers to purchase policies that spread risk across a much larger population. New consumer protections would also keep costs down by prohibiting insurers from charging higher premiums on the basis of health status or gender. Right now, being a woman is a preexisting condition under the terms of many insurance policies. That is just not acceptable. Employers would also be able to keep expenses down by promoting personal responsibility--offering wellness premium discounts to employees who make healthy choices. Enacting meaningful health care reform is necessary for ensuring productive small businesses, new American jobs, and a strong economy. Independent and unbiased analyses estimate that in the next 10 years, reform can save upward of 80,000 small business jobs and raise wages by more than $30 billion annually. Those are very promising numbers. As the Senate begins its historic floor debate on health insurance reform, you can expect that I and my colleagues will continue reminding the other side of the aisle just how critical reform is to the small business community. No amount of misleading rhetoric or misdirection by the defenders of the status quo will be enough to convince the American people we should continue forward on our current unsustainable path. I say to all my colleagues: Let's work together over the coming weeks to strengthen this legislation, empower small businesses, and put America's health care system on the road to recovery. Thank you, Mr. President. As I yield the floor, I wish to acknowledge the great leadership of the chairman of the Small Business Committee, the Senator from Louisiana. Thank you.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, today I am introducing the San Juan Mountains Wilderness Act of 2009. This bill is the Senate companion to the bill introduced by Representative John Salazar in the House of Representatives. I want to thank Representative Salazar for all of his great work in bringing this bill forward. I am proud to sponsor this legislation in the Senate along with my Colorado colleague, Senator Bennet. The San Juan Mountains Wilderness Act would designate about 33,383 acres in southwestern Colorado as wilderness, and about 21,697 acres as a special management area. It would also withdraw about 6,596 acres from mineral entry lands within the Naturita Canyon. The bill is the result of the extensive work by many people to develop a collaborative approach to wilderness proposals and land protection designations. Representative Salazar and his staff worked with the affected Colorado county commissioners and interested stakeholders in developing this legislation. It is crafted to take into account the various ongoing uses of these lands, such as for water and recreation, while also providing strong managerial protection for these sensitive lands. These lands are indeed worthy of this designation. This region of Colorado is blessed with stunning beauty. Much of the land proposed for wilderness and other protections in this legislation are additions to existing wilderness. Those areas include the Mt. Sneffels Wilderness Area and the Lizard Head Wilderness--two areas that contain fourteen thousand foot peaks. They are defined by their rugged beauty or rock and ice surrounded by forests that frame these peaks in summer's vibrant greens and brilliant fall colors. The bill also establishes a new area called McKenna Peak. This peak presides over imposing sandstone cliffs which rise 2,000 feet above the plain that presents a remarkable opportunity to add a unique landform to the National Wilderness Preservation System. It also provides important winter wildlife habitat for large numbers of deer and elk. The Peak borders North Mountain, now considered to contain one of the largest deer and elk herds in all of Colorado. The Division of Wildlife places winter numbers of deer at 500 to 600, with up to 150 wintering elk. The favorable habitat for deer and elk naturally draws many hunters. Over 30,000 recreation user days are recorded annually during hunting season in the game management unit of which McKenna Peak is a part. A wild horse herd numbering about 100 roams the western reaches of McKenna Peak within the designated Spring Creek Wild Horse Herd Management Area. Bald eagles winter in the lower reaches of the area, and peregrine falcons have been sighted as well. Mountain lions, bobcats, and black bear are also known to inhabit McKenna Peak. Other natural features of interest include rich fossil beds. Moreover, the bill would establish the Sheep Mountain Special Management Area. This area is equally as striking as the surrounding mountains and valleys that are already protected or would be protected as wilderness in this legislation. However, since helicopter skiing currently exists in this area, the legislation designates this area in a way that protects its wilderness character, but still allows this use to continue. It is the sort of accommodation that is reflective of sound wilderness and land protection proposals, and I appreciate the compromises that are reflected in this approach. As many of these lands are in high altitude areas, there should not be any issues related to water or other conflicts. As a result, the legislation does not exert a federally reserved water right, but allows access to existing water facilities and needs while also precluding any federal assistance for any new or expansion of existing water resource facility. This bill has been carefully crafted and narrowly tailored to apply deserving protections to these lands. I look forward to working with my colleagues in seeing it passed. Mr. President, I ask unanimous Consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, today I am introducing the San Juan Mountains Wilderness Act of 2009. This bill is the Senate companion to the bill introduced by Representative John Salazar in the House of Representatives. I want to thank Representative Salazar for all of his great work in bringing this bill forward. I am proud to sponsor this legislation in the Senate along with my Colorado colleague, Senator Bennet. The San Juan Mountains Wilderness Act would designate about 33,383 acres in southwestern Colorado as wilderness, and about 21,697 acres as a special management area. It would also withdraw about 6,596 acres from mineral entry lands within the Naturita Canyon. The bill is the result of the extensive work by many people to develop a collaborative approach to wilderness proposals and land protection designations. Representative Salazar and his staff worked with the affected Colorado county commissioners and interested stakeholders in developing this legislation. It is crafted to take into account the various ongoing uses of these lands, such as for water and recreation, while also providing strong managerial protection for these sensitive lands. These lands are indeed worthy of this designation. This region of Colorado is blessed with stunning beauty. Much of the land proposed for wilderness and other protections in this legislation are additions to existing wilderness. Those areas include the Mt. Sneffels Wilderness Area and the Lizard Head Wilderness--two areas that contain fourteen thousand foot peaks. They are defined by their rugged beauty or rock and ice surrounded by forests that frame these peaks in summer's vibrant greens and brilliant fall colors. The bill also establishes a new area called McKenna Peak. This peak presides over imposing sandstone cliffs which rise 2,000 feet above the plain that presents a remarkable opportunity to add a unique landform to the National Wilderness Preservation System. It also provides important winter wildlife habitat for large numbers of deer and elk. The Peak borders North Mountain, now considered to contain one of the largest deer and elk herds in all of Colorado. The Division of Wildlife places winter numbers of deer at 500 to 600, with up to 150 wintering elk. The favorable habitat for deer and elk naturally draws many hunters. Over 30,000 recreation user days are recorded annually during hunting season in the game management unit of which McKenna Peak is a part. A wild horse herd numbering about 100 roams the western reaches of McKenna Peak within the designated Spring Creek Wild Horse Herd Management Area. Bald eagles winter in the lower reaches of the area, and peregrine falcons have been sighted as well. Mountain lions, bobcats, and black bear are also known to inhabit McKenna Peak. Other natural features of interest include rich fossil beds. Moreover, the bill would establish the Sheep Mountain Special Management Area. This area is equally as striking as the surrounding mountains and valleys that are already protected or would be protected as wilderness in this legislation. However, since helicopter skiing currently exists in this area, the legislation designates this area in a way that protects its wilderness character, but still allows this use to continue. It is the sort of accommodation that is reflective of sound wilderness and land protection proposals, and I appreciate the compromises that are reflected in this approach. As many of these lands are in high altitude areas, there should not be any issues related to water or other conflicts. As a result, the legislation does not exert a federally reserved water right, but allows access to existing water facilities and needs while also precluding any federal assistance for any new or expansion of existing water resource facility. This bill has been carefully crafted and narrowly tailored to apply deserving protections to these lands. I look forward to working with my colleagues in seeing it passed. Mr. President, I ask unanimous Consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam President, I wish to pay tribute to a dedicated public servant, Ms. Lorraine Anderson, who on November 9, 2009, is stepping down after 24 years on the Arvada City Council. Lorraine has been a dedicated public servant who has served her community of Arvada, CO, in innumerable ways and has developed a reputation across the Denver metropolitan area as a leader in the best tradition of bipartisanship and local government service. Her experience and influence have also been recognized at the national level. I got to know Lorraine while working on issues related to the cleanup and closure of the Rocky Flats nuclear weapons facility near Arvada when I was a Congressman representing this area of Colorado. While she was a strong advocate for a thorough cleanup of this site and a defender of the interests of Arvada, she also worked in a collaborative spirit that was informed by heavy doses of practical common sense. As many of my colleagues will recognize, these cleanups can be complex and the process full of acronyms and scientific jargon. Lorraine would make sure that regulators and State and Federal officials spoke to the public in plain English. She prized understanding and workable solutions in the very complicated process of securing local agreement on the cleanup process. She was a valuable contributor to this process and helped make it a success. It is the same approach that she brought to all of her public service work. Let me take a moment to highlight that work and her distinguished and impressive record. She served six terms on the Arvada City Council between 1985 and 2009 and served as mayor pro tem many times over the span of her time with the city. During this time, she also served on the Arvada Planning Commission, was a founding member of both the Arvada Clean Air Advisory Committee and the Arvada Economic Development Association, and served as a board member of the Forward Arvada Building Corporation. On issues affecting the Denver metropolitan area, she served on the board of the Colorado Municipal League from 1991 through 2005 and was the president of that board in 2000. She also served on the board of directors of the Denver Regional Council of Governments from 1991 through 2007 and was chair of that organization in 2004. She served on the Regional Air Quality Council from 1993 to 1997 and was president of Colorado Women in Municipal Government from 1991 to 1993. And she served on the Rocky Flats Coalition of Local Governments and the Rocky Flats Stewardship Task Force Steering Committee. On the national level, Lorraine served on the National League of Cities board of directors from 2003 to 2005 and was a member of many of the league's committees, including Energy, Environment, and Natural Resources and the Clean Air Task Force, and was a board member of the Energy Communities Alliance. Lorraine is well-known throughout the Denver metropolitan region and is a tireless advocate for local governments in the metro area on growth policies, transportation, both highway and transit, public health, and environmental issues. She has not only worked actively and effectively with her local and State elected colleagues in the region, but she has also advocated and educated her constituents on the importance of their involvement in regional issues. She has been one of only a handful of women who have served on the Arvada City Council, and she is a role model for the community in this regard. In addition to her public service, Lorraine is the retired co-owner of Anderson Tire Service, Inc., and served as president of the Mountain States Tire Dealers Association in 1988, one of two women first elected to the board of directors and the first woman to serve as president of that organization. I know that the city of Arvada is sorry to see her step down. But I also know that she will likely stay involved in the important issues affecting her city, region, State and Nation. I wish her all the best in her future endeavors and thank her for her proud service to her community and Nation.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from North Carolina, Senator Hagan, for convening this important session this morning where we will talk about the urgent need to reform health care in our country. The unsustainable growth in health care costs and lack of stable, affordable coverage for millions of Americans continue to jeopardize not only our Nation's fiscal well-being but also the physical well- being of our families and neighbors. One of the key ways we can help put our health care system and our economy on the right track is by encouraging value in the delivery of health care. I have cited these numbers before--I know many of us have--but I want to emphasize them again. As a nation, we spend over $2 trillion per year on health care--that is nearly one-fifth of our economy. Yet between 30 and 50 percent of these dollars are not contributing to better patient health. That is not a good deal for the American people. Health reform is designed to address this staggering amount of waste in a number of ways. One way is to encourage providers to focus on the quality of care they provide and not just on the volume. And we can start with Medicare. I think the American people would agree that taxpayer dollars are better spent rewarding doctors for keeping patients healthy and not for performing more tests or more procedures. Health reform legislation can move us in this direction through the development of what are known as accountable care organizations, or ACOs. These organizations would encourage groups of health care professionals to team up and provide more coordinated, streamlined care to Medicare patients. The idea is to have these ACOs take responsibility for improving patient care while lowering cost and then sharing the savings that accrue. Research indicates that this idea of shared savings would help eliminate waste and spur changes in our health care delivery system to emphasize patient outcomes and value. The idea for ACOs no doubt came from the great work being done by a patchwork of physician groups. Groups such as the Physician Health Partners, or PHP, in my home State of Colorado, and others across the country focused on care coordination and quality. For example, PHP has seen great success in improving care for kids suffering from asthma--the No. 1 cause of child hospitalization and school absence. They developed treatment guidelines and promoted collaboration among doctors, the Children's Hospital in Denver, and the Colorado Allergy and Asthma Centers. As a result, they have reduced emergency room visits and improved families' ability to manage asthma on their own. PHP also has the Practice Health Project. This comprehensive effort brings doctors together to share best practices and encourage the adoption of commonsense guidelines to improve quality and efficiency. The goal of this team effort is to raise the standard and value of care and allow these physician groups to act as a model for Denver's physician community as a whole. I would also like to tout the PHP's Transitions of Care Program in collaboration with Denver's St. Anthony Hospital and other local care providers. The program dispatches nurse coaches to help Medicare patients make the transition from the hospital to their homes. The period immediately following a hospital stay is a very confusing time, particularly for our seniors. Having someone help with this transition is crucial. PHP has had tremendous early success with this program, showing the potential to reduce costly hospital readmissions by 40 to 50 percent. At the same time, this program keeps patients healthy and it saves money. The successes of groups such as Physician Health Partners demonstrate that we already have the will and the know-how to change our system for the better. But under our existing system there is no incentive for programs like PHP to even exist. Under the status quo, a hospital stands to lose money if it decreases its admission rates. Primary care doctors would be at a financial disadvantage if they spent time in the development and implementation of effective treatment plans for their asthmatic patients. This is why health reform includes commonsense proposals such as encouraging groups such as Physician Health Partners to form accountable care organizations and paying them to coordinate care for Medicare patients. Promoting ACOs and other creative pro-consumer ideas will increase quality for patients and value for the taxpayer. Only by reshaping the way we do business in our health care system can we truly change health care delivery in our country. I look forward to working with my colleagues here today and other Senators in the coming weeks to promote the many ways we can accomplish that goal. I thank Senator Hagan, and I yield the floor.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I want to take this opportunity to recognize a true champion of land protection who also happens to be a member of my staff, Mr. Jay Fetcher. Jay, who owns a ranch near Steamboat Spring, CO, and who is my northwestern Colorado field director, has been selected by a land preservation group called Colorado Open Lands as the recipient of their 2009 George E. Cramner Award. Every year since 1992, Colorado Open Lands has bestowed this award on someone who has distinguished themselves in open space preservation. According to Colorado Open Lands, recipients of this award are individuals who have gone above and beyond what others have done to preserve and protect open spaces and often achieve these goals through determination and passion for the land. They leave behind a legacy that will be valued and enjoyed for generations. Jay is just such a person, and he is indeed deserving of this prestigious award. As highlighted in the Colorado Open Lands newsletter announcing this award, Jay's ties to Colorado agriculture and conservation run deep. He grew up on the family ranch, and after receiving a degree in Animal Science from the University of Wyoming, he returned to his family's ranch to take over the operation. In 1980, he received a master's degree in genetics from Colorado State University. In 1994, the Fetchers decided that they wanted their land near Steamboat Springs to be a ranch forever and to be able to pass it on to their children. After creating their ranch's conservation easement, Jay went to the board of the Colorado Cattlemen's Association and suggested it start a land trust. The Cattlemen's Association voted to become the first mainstream agricultural organization in the Nation to form a land trust, which was officially incorporated in 1995 as the Colorado Cattlemen's Agricultural Land Trust. Jay worked diligently for land preservation as a founding member and past president of the Colorado Cattlemen's Agricultural Land Trust. Jay's community service record is also impressive, and includes serving on the boards of the Colorado Water Trust, the Colorado Environmental Coalition, the Steamboat Springs School District and Education Fund, the North Routt Fire Protection District, the Yampa Valley Medical Center, and as a founding member of the Community Agriculture Alliance. He served on the Governor's Agriculture Land Conversion task force in 1995 and is a member of the Routt County Cattlemen and the Colorado Cattlemen's Association. He also served as a regional representative in northwest Colorado for Senator Ken Salazar. In 1997, Jay received the American Land Conservation Award, which recognizes outstanding volunteer leadership in land and water conservation. In April 2009, he received the William Funk Award for the Nonprofit Association of Colorado, which honors acknowledged leaders who can unify people and organizations around a common cause. Over the years, Jay's insight and hard work for the land trust movement and conservation have proven invaluable. Jay has become a trusted resource for those considering conservation easements. That experience--and his deep roots in the community and his dedication to service--lead Jay to twice run for a seat in the Colorado State Legislature. Jay applied the same work ethic--and integrity--to these races as he does to his land preservation work. These were very close races, and his loss has been our gain. In March of this year, I asked Jay to join my office as field director for the issues and concerns of northwestern Colorado. I had no hesitation offering him the position, as he is a well-known and well- respected community member of this region of Colorado. He had performed similar great service to a former Senator from Colorado--and now Secretary of the Interior, Ken Salazar. He has been doing an exemplary job working with the communities and citizens in this area on issues regarding water, land, agriculture, outdoor recreation, rural health care and services, and federal public land management. Jay is an expert in all of these areas and has already proven himself as a valued member of my team. Jay's dedication to the land and the need to keep it productive and preserved was recently highlighted in a book from Colorado's preeminent landscape photographer, John Fielder. The book, called Ranches of Colorado, features glorious photographs of many Colorado ranches, including the Fetcher ranch. In the text of the section describing the Fetcher Ranch, former Denver Post reporter and author James Meadow had this to say about Jay when describing the Fetcher ranch family history: [Jay] fell in love with the land and the cattle and stayed to learn their ways; remaining on the ranch year after year, until the years became decades, and the decades tumbled past a half-century, and there is still no end in sight to [Jay's] love of the land. You can see that love in his eyes [and] you can hear it in his voice. It is a soft voice, a voice that cites Mother Teresa and the intricacies of cattle genetics with the same kind of curiously easygoing gravitas. This is a short but apt description of Jay--his story and passion for the land he has worked and loved. I appreciate that Colorado Open Lands has also recognized Jay's great work and am pleased that they are honoring him with this prestigious award. My staff and I want to express our congratulations to Jay for all his great work. We will continue to expect many more great accomplishments from him in the years to come.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the role nuclear energy can play in moving our country toward a more secure energy future. For some, news that a Udall is speaking favorably about nuclear power will come as a stark and perhaps unpleasant surprise. But I also believe public and expert opinion on the risks and benefits of nuclear power has changed. The environmental and energy security challenges that we faced in the 1970s, when that decade closed in the shadow of Three Mile Island, have changed significantly. When my father Mo Udall campaigned for President in the New Hampshire primary in 1976--and the Presiding Officer remembers that era--and when he was asked about the controversial Seabrook nuclear facility, no one had climate change on their list of environmental concerns. Today, more than 30 years on, we have a less parochial and more global view about the challenges of energy security, climate change, and the problems associated with carbon-based energy production. Given the economic, national security, and environmental threats our current energy system creates, we need a comprehensive and cleaner national energy policy. In this regard, clearly, nuclear energy has emerged as an important player in our search for a stable and domestic energy source that has less greenhouse gas emissions. A cleaner energy economy will spur innovation in and accelerate the shift to clean and domestic energy sources. It will create a new industrial sector, employing millions of Americans in the research, development, manufacturing, sale, installation and servicing of new energy technologies. And it will help reduce our dependence on foreign oil from unstable regions of the world. Moreover, like it or not, we must address the climate challenge we face. My State of Colorado is already seeing the indirect impacts of carbon pollution in the form of a devastating bark beetle infestation that is killing our forests. Looking beyond environmental concerns and as we face perhaps our greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression, we also need an ``all of the above'' solution to jump-start our economy. That means continuing our development of renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, and biomass, as well as traditional energy resources like coal and oil, and cleaner fuels like natural gas. That also means we should continue to invest in energy efficiency and conservation technology. And that means that nuclear energy and new nuclear power plants must be a part of the mix. As I said earlier, a growing number of skeptics and even opponents of nuclear power are taking a second look at this industry. I count myself among them, and these are some of the reasons why: First, in the last few decades, the performance and safety record of nuclear plant operations in the United States has greatly improved. Safety is and always must be the No. 1 priority at nuclear facilities. There is always more we can do on safety, but the industry has built a good record and we should recognize that fact. Then there are the environmental benefits to nuclear power. Unlike fossil fuel plants, nuclear plants do not emit appreciable amounts of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, mercury or particulate matter. That means they cause less acid rain, as well as fewer asthma complications and other health ailments. Further, nuclear plants release minimal amounts of carbon pollution. In fact, nuclear power plants are one of the few low-carbon, large- scale sources of baseload power that we know how to build today. Let me note that carbon-capture and storage technologies at coal and natural gas plants could also potentially provide low-carbon baseload power at large scales too. And it is very important that we build these first commercial CCS plants and do all we can to develop economically viable carbon-capture and sequestration technologies. I have long been a supporter of renewable energy and energy efficiency, and I will continue to be. But the scale of the energy changes we must make dictates that we be open to the widest variety of energy options, particularly those with domestic potential and those with cleaner emissions. In other words, there is no silver bullet that will solve all of our energy challenges; we are going to need, in the parlance of the West, silver buckshot. Examining all the pros and cons, I have come to the view that nuclear energy is a part of that silver buckshot. I know there are many who remain skeptical of nuclear power, including good friends of mine. Nuclear power is not trouble-free. No energy source is. I hope we can all agree, however, on our clean energy goals: more jobs, greater energy security, and a cleaner environment for our children. Supporters and opponents of nuclear power share another concern in common. Neither knows for sure how much new nuclear plants are going to cost. We have a new licensing process that has never been tested. We have not ordered a new nuclear plant in three decades. Many nuclear technology components, for at least the first wave of nuclear plants, will likely be manufactured in other countries, and the future cost of construction materials is unknown. These uncertainties, along with others, led the National Academy of Sciences to estimate that electricity from new nuclear plants would likely cost in the range of 8 to 13 cents per kilowatt hour, which is a considerable span. Given the large potential of nuclear energy, however, we need to build new nuclear plants over the next decade. This first wave of new plants will go a long way toward telling us whether new plants can be built on budget and on schedule in the United States. I hope the answers are yes and yes, and that the final cost of electricity is at the lower end of the uncertainty range. I say this because if nuclear energy is to survive as a viable option, it will need to compete against other low-carbon technologies in the long run. Some may object to the building of new nuclear plants before we have a long-term solution to the question of what to do with nuclear waste. It is true we do not have a permanent solution right now. It is also true that the answers about the viability, both environmental and political, of Yucca Mountain as a permanent waste facility continue to elude us. I fully acknowledge that as a Member of the House of Representatives, I shared these concerns and voted accordingly. But uncertainty about a long-term and permanent solution to waste storage is not a reason to halt nuclear power. I am confident that we have the technical capabilities and knowledge to safely and responsibly store nuclear waste for the required time periods. This is not a technology problem. It is a challenge to find a fair and safe path forward, and I support the President's intention to appoint a blue ribbon commission to make such a recommendation. In the meantime, dry cask storage provides a safe, proven option for at least 100 years. We have time to get this right, so let us not rush into anything out of a false sense of emergency. Let me turn to another subject tied to nuclear power production, and that is reprocessing. It has been suggested that we should build commercial scale facilities in the United States to reprocess our spent fuel as France and Japan do. I do not believe that makes sense. Why? First, the French system of reprocessing is not a comprehensive waste management strategy, and so far the benefits from that approach have been fairly marginal. In other words, they have not solved their waste challenge with reprocessing. Secondly, we do not need to recycle spent nuclear fuel to enable the expansion of nuclear power in the United States and elsewhere. Uranium supplies are sufficient to support a worldwide expansion of nuclear power during this next century. Third, the international proliferation risk associated with reprocessing is a concern. The process used in France creates separated plutonium which could be diverted for weapons production. I do not want to see separated plutonium in any country but especially in those that are unfriendly to us. And we are in a weaker position to try and dissuade those countries from reprocessing if we are doing it ourselves. My conclusion is that a near-term decision to deploy reprocessing facilities would be unwise and unnecessary. I do support research into advanced proliferation-resistant technologies, though none of those will be ready for deployment anytime in the near future. In general, our goal should be to keep nuclear power as low-cost and proliferation- resistant as possible. To that end, today I am introducing a bipartisan bill, the Nuclear Energy Research Initiative Improvement Act of 2009. This bill, which is cosponsored by Chairman Bingaman and Ranking Member Murkowski, authorizes the U.S. Department of Energy to conduct research into modular and small-scale reactors, enhanced proliferation controls, and cost-efficient manufacturing. We are going to be debating clean energy later this Congress. I know several of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle would like to see a strong nuclear title. I hope we can come to a reasonable compromise that advances nuclear power and allows us to finally put a price on carbon pollution. That will give the energy sector the certainty it needs to begin planning and building our clean energy future and to begin creating clean energy jobs. Nuclear plants to date provide jobs for thousands of Americans, and new plants would provide thousands more. New plants would also generate millions in tax revenues for State, local, and Federal governments struggling with large deficits from the economic downturn. Nuclear power's energy security and environmental benefits have earned this industry an important place at the table. It is my hope we can build some nuclear plants over the next decade to create jobs and build a cleaner, more secure tomorrow. I invite all of my colleagues, from both sides of the aisle, to join Senator Bingaman, Senator Murkowski, and me in cosponsoring the Nuclear Energy Research Initiative Improvement Act of 2009. One of my energy fellows, Matt Bowen, is leaving my office to join the Department of Energy. I thank Matt for his work in my office, including on the bill I am introducing today, and I wish him well at the Department of Energy. We have been well served as a country by Matt Bowen's patriotism and work ethic.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the role nuclear energy can play in moving our country toward a more secure energy future. For some, news that a Udall is speaking favorably about nuclear power will come as a stark and perhaps unpleasant surprise. But I also believe public and expert opinion on the risks and benefits of nuclear power has changed. The environmental and energy security challenges that we faced in the 1970s, when that decade closed in the shadow of Three Mile Island, have changed significantly. When my father Mo Udall campaigned for President in the New Hampshire primary in 1976--and the Presiding Officer remembers that era--and when he was asked about the controversial Seabrook nuclear facility, no one had climate change on their list of environmental concerns. Today, more than 30 years on, we have a less parochial and more global view about the challenges of energy security, climate change, and the problems associated with carbon-based energy production. Given the economic, national security, and environmental threats our current energy system creates, we need a comprehensive and cleaner national energy policy. In this regard, clearly, nuclear energy has emerged as an important player in our search for a stable and domestic energy source that has less greenhouse gas emissions. A cleaner energy economy will spur innovation in and accelerate the shift to clean and domestic energy sources. It will create a new industrial sector, employing millions of Americans in the research, development, manufacturing, sale, installation and servicing of new energy technologies. And it will help reduce our dependence on foreign oil from unstable regions of the world. Moreover, like it or not, we must address the climate challenge we face. My State of Colorado is already seeing the indirect impacts of carbon pollution in the form of a devastating bark beetle infestation that is killing our forests. Looking beyond environmental concerns and as we face perhaps our greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression, we also need an ``all of the above'' solution to jump-start our economy. That means continuing our development of renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, and biomass, as well as traditional energy resources like coal and oil, and cleaner fuels like natural gas. That also means we should continue to invest in energy efficiency and conservation technology. And that means that nuclear energy and new nuclear power plants must be a part of the mix. As I said earlier, a growing number of skeptics and even opponents of nuclear power are taking a second look at this industry. I count myself among them, and these are some of the reasons why: First, in the last few decades, the performance and safety record of nuclear plant operations in the United States has greatly improved. Safety is and always must be the No. 1 priority at nuclear facilities. There is always more we can do on safety, but the industry has built a good record and we should recognize that fact. Then there are the environmental benefits to nuclear power. Unlike fossil fuel plants, nuclear plants do not emit appreciable amounts of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, mercury or particulate matter. That means they cause less acid rain, as well as fewer asthma complications and other health ailments. Further, nuclear plants release minimal amounts of carbon pollution. In fact, nuclear power plants are one of the few low-carbon, large- scale sources of baseload power that we know how to build today. Let me note that carbon-capture and storage technologies at coal and natural gas plants could also potentially provide low-carbon baseload power at large scales too. And it is very important that we build these first commercial CCS plants and do all we can to develop economically viable carbon-capture and sequestration technologies. I have long been a supporter of renewable energy and energy efficiency, and I will continue to be. But the scale of the energy changes we must make dictates that we be open to the widest variety of energy options, particularly those with domestic potential and those with cleaner emissions. In other words, there is no silver bullet that will solve all of our energy challenges; we are going to need, in the parlance of the West, silver buckshot. Examining all the pros and cons, I have come to the view that nuclear energy is a part of that silver buckshot. I know there are many who remain skeptical of nuclear power, including good friends of mine. Nuclear power is not trouble-free. No energy source is. I hope we can all agree, however, on our clean energy goals: more jobs, greater energy security, and a cleaner environment for our children. Supporters and opponents of nuclear power share another concern in common. Neither knows for sure how much new nuclear plants are going to cost. We have a new licensing process that has never been tested. We have not ordered a new nuclear plant in three decades. Many nuclear technology components, for at least the first wave of nuclear plants, will likely be manufactured in other countries, and the future cost of construction materials is unknown. These uncertainties, along with others, led the National Academy of Sciences to estimate that electricity from new nuclear plants would likely cost in the range of 8 to 13 cents per kilowatt hour, which is a considerable span. Given the large potential of nuclear energy, however, we need to build new nuclear plants over the next decade. This first wave of new plants will go a long way toward telling us whether new plants can be built on budget and on schedule in the United States. I hope the answers are yes and yes, and that the final cost of electricity is at the lower end of the uncertainty range. I say this because if nuclear energy is to survive as a viable option, it will need to compete against other low-carbon technologies in the long run. Some may object to the building of new nuclear plants before we have a long-term solution to the question of what to do with nuclear waste. It is true we do not have a permanent solution right now. It is also true that the answers about the viability, both environmental and political, of Yucca Mountain as a permanent waste facility continue to elude us. I fully acknowledge that as a Member of the House of Representatives, I shared these concerns and voted accordingly. But uncertainty about a long-term and permanent solution to waste storage is not a reason to halt nuclear power. I am confident that we have the technical capabilities and knowledge to safely and responsibly store nuclear waste for the required time periods. This is not a technology problem. It is a challenge to find a fair and safe path forward, and I support the President's intention to appoint a blue ribbon commission to make such a recommendation. In the meantime, dry cask storage provides a safe, proven option for at least 100 years. We have time to get this right, so let us not rush into anything out of a false sense of emergency. Let me turn to another subject tied to nuclear power production, and that is reprocessing. It has been suggested that we should build commercial scale facilities in the United States to reprocess our spent fuel as France and Japan do. I do not believe that makes sense. Why? First, the French system of reprocessing is not a comprehensive waste management strategy, and so far the benefits from that approach have been fairly marginal. In other words, they have not solved their waste challenge with reprocessing. Secondly, we do not need to recycle spent nuclear fuel to enable the expansion of nuclear power in the United States and elsewhere. Uranium supplies are sufficient to support a worldwide expansion of nuclear power during this next century. Third, the international proliferation risk associated with reprocessing is a concern. The process used in France creates separated plutonium which could be diverted for weapons production. I do not want to see separated plutonium in any country but especially in those that are unfriendly to us. And we are in a weaker position to try and dissuade those countries from reprocessing if we are doing it ourselves. My conclusion is that a near-term decision to deploy reprocessing facilities would be unwise and unnecessary. I do support research into advanced proliferation-resistant technologies, though none of those will be ready for deployment anytime in the near future. In general, our goal should be to keep nuclear power as low-cost and proliferation- resistant as possible. To that end, today I am introducing a bipartisan bill, the Nuclear Energy Research Initiative Improvement Act of 2009. This bill, which is cosponsored by Chairman Bingaman and Ranking Member Murkowski, authorizes the U.S. Department of Energy to conduct research into modular and small-scale reactors, enhanced proliferation controls, and cost-efficient manufacturing. We are going to be debating clean energy later this Congress. I know several of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle would like to see a strong nuclear title. I hope we can come to a reasonable compromise that advances nuclear power and allows us to finally put a price on carbon pollution. That will give the energy sector the certainty it needs to begin planning and building our clean energy future and to begin creating clean energy jobs. Nuclear plants to date provide jobs for thousands of Americans, and new plants would provide thousands more. New plants would also generate millions in tax revenues for State, local, and Federal governments struggling with large deficits from the economic downturn. Nuclear power's energy security and environmental benefits have earned this industry an important place at the table. It is my hope we can build some nuclear plants over the next decade to create jobs and build a cleaner, more secure tomorrow. I invite all of my colleagues, from both sides of the aisle, to join Senator Bingaman, Senator Murkowski, and me in cosponsoring the Nuclear Energy Research Initiative Improvement Act of 2009. One of my energy fellows, Matt Bowen, is leaving my office to join the Department of Energy. I thank Matt for his work in my office, including on the bill I am introducing today, and I wish him well at the Department of Energy. We have been well served as a country by Matt Bowen's patriotism and work ethic.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Alaska for convening the important discussion we have had here this morning. As you have heard and we have all heard over the last hour, my colleagues and I agree that the point of health care reform is to bring affordable, quality health care to all Americans. The bill we will debate here on the floor in the coming weeks will include important insurance reforms to make that a reality. I want to ask you though, Mr. President, and everybody watching, will we have succeeded in our mission if we merely put an insurance card in every American's pocket? Comprehensive health care reform needs to be about a lot more than that. We have heard about the difficult fiscal challenges that await us if we do nothing. Putting our economy on a sustainable path for the future means we have to address this unsustainable growth in health care spending that you so eloquently addressed earlier in your remarks. One of the best ways we can do that is by preventing illness in the first place. The good news is that many communities and providers all over the country are doing just that. We can recognize their innovative successes and incentivize others to follow in this reform package. If we do that, we will have a big impact on patient health as well as on the Nation's bottom line. I wish to talk about a program in Colorado that has been getting results. The Northwest Colorado Visiting Nurse Association, which has been working with the Department of Public Health, local physicians, and others, operates the Aging Well program. It focuses on prevention, and it connects rural Coloradans over age 50 with services and information to help them remain active, healthy, in their homes, and out of the hospital. Patients receive health screenings, exercise classes, and courses on managing conditions such as arthritis or chronic pain. Aging Well has been a great success. Listen to these numbers from a recent survey: 98 percent of participants reported improved fitness, 60 percent visited their doctor less often, and 18 percent reduced their medication needs. This saves dollars and improves lives. Health insurance reform legislation includes funding to start similar programs aimed at keeping those just shy of their Medicare years--I have to confess, like me--active and healthy. The goal is to allow Americans to avoid spending their golden years worrying about illnesses that could have been prevented in the first place. To complement these programs, additional grants would give these organizations the tools to promote healthy living for all ages, reduce obesity, tobacco use, and mental illness. Health reform would also require insurers to provide full coverage for preventive services at no cost to enrollees. That is music to the ears of any American who has skipped a recommended mammogram or an annual physical exam because the cost was too great. Let me talk about children as well. There are grants in our health reform package for school-based health clinics so that children who lack easy access to a doctor can get preventive care right at school. These clinics have been shown to save $2 for every $1 they spend. This results in fewer emergency room visits and hospital visits, and we deliver health care before problems become more serious. Let me turn back to adults in the workplace. Reform would bring wellness programs to the workplace by providing grants for employers. Companies that have implemented wellness programs have already seen big savings. PepsiCo is one such company. They offer onsite screenings, programs to help employees lose weight, exercise incentives, and other measures. As a result, they have saved nearly $120 per participating employee per month, which has resulted in a 2-year savings of over $22 million. Even better than the dollars involved here, participants demonstrated lower health risks and better health outcomes. This is one more way reform will pave the way and provide incentives for more companies to follow suit for their employees. Reform is also a great deal for seniors. For the first time, Medicare will pay for annual wellness visits. Reform would create incentives for Medicare patients who alter their behavior in order to lower their blood pressure and better control their diabetes. Medicare will cover recommended preventive services now, which is at no additional cost to seniors. In sum, contrary to what we have heard from some on the other side, Medicare benefits will be improved by the reform that is being proposed. Let me conclude by pointing out that this legislation makes the wise choice of building on our wellness efforts that are already working. We know preventive care enables doctors and other health care providers to detect diseases earlier, when treatment is the most effective, averting more serious and costly problems later on. But it also empowers each and every one of us to take charge of improving the quality of our lives, and when done correctly it is a crucial component of efficiently and responsibly addressing health care spending. I yield the floor.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam President, I rise today to discuss an issue of importance to all American consumers who rely on credit cards, especially during our economic downturn. More specifically, I would like to address two pieces of critically important legislation that would help consumers. First, last week I introduced legislation to move up the effective date of credit card reforms outlined in the Credit CARD Act, which was signed into law by President Obama in May. The act gave credit card issuers nine months from the date of enactment to phase out their most egregious practices, including arbitrarily raising interest rates, raising interest rates on existing balances, and charging interest on debt paid on time--the latter a particularly underhanded tactic known as double-cycle billing. Rather than phasing out these practices before the new requirements take effect, credit card issuers have increased them, squeezing as much as they can out of American consumers prior to the date the reforms are scheduled to go into effect. A Pew Charitable Trusts study to be released later this week will reveal that through the first 6 months of this year, the 12 largest credit card issuers raised interest rates an average of 20 percent, with many cardholders seeing rate increases in excess of 20 percent. This is happening despite the fact that these credit card companies, many of which received taxpayer bailout funds, are reaping the benefit--some might say government subsidy--of Federal interest rates at or near zero percent. The bill I introduced last week, the Expedited CARD Reform for Consumers Act of 2009, will move the effective date of enactment for all reforms required under the Credit CARD Act to December 1, 2009. The majority of reforms are currently due to go into effect on February 22, 2010, with a few other reforms due to go into effect on August 22, 2010. We all know how important short-term credit is to families and small businesses, especially during hard economic times. And we have all heard stories of people who have been victimized by the kind of unfair practices that the Credit CARD Act will end. But the truth is I have heard more stories from my constituents about these unfair and deceptive practices since the President signed the Credit CARD Act into law, than I did in the months leading up to the bill's passage. And that's saying something. Through no fault of their own, many Coloradans have been victimized by their credit card issuer. For example, a constituent named Jean from Commerce City wrote to me: Recently, CitiBank raised my [credit card] APR to 29.99 percent. I called and found out that they did not raise my rate because I'm late, or have a bad FICO score, but because they sent me a letter with the option to opt OUT of a higher interest rate. I've had this card for over 15 years and never been late. I don't understand how taxpayers gave banks taxpayer money, banks report record profits, and banks still feel they can [take unfair advantage of] the common Joe. Basically our credit card companies took away our available credit and then raised our credit card rates even though we made payments on time. Please help the citizens of this country instead of helping the few executives at these banks. We really need your help, and in the long run this will help our country. Likewise, northern Colorado small business owner Ginny Teel, whose company 10 til 2 helps pair businesses with professionals looking for part-time work, recently took to the airwaves to tell a similar story. In a Denver television news story, Ginny reported how her credit card company is doubling her interest rate, from 11 percent to 22 percent, for no reason. Like many small businesses, Ginny relied on her credit card to get her business up and running. In the letter to inform her of the rate increase, Wells Fargo states: ``These changes are not a reflection of how you managed your account with us or your credit score.'' In other words, her credit card issuer is saying it is doubling her interest rate because it still can. I have heard from hundreds of Coloradans with similar stories since the Credit CARD Act was passed. For many American families and small businesses, credit cards are more than a convenience, they are a necessity. Short-term credit is sometimes the only way that families can pay for necessities or that small businesses can function. And a well-functioning credit card industry that treats its customers with fairness is absolutely essential to rebuilding our economy. I first introduced legislation to end unfair and abusive credit card practices in 2005 as a Member of the House of Representatives, and I was honored to be a part of finally passing real reform earlier this year. But I am equally disappointed that credit card issuers would now bleed American consumers for as much as they can prior to the reforms taking effect. My legislation is supported by consumer advocate organizations, including the member organizations of Americans for Fairness in Lending, as well as the National Small Business Association, whose members, like Ginny Teel, increasingly rely on credit cards for their small business needs. During debate on the Credit CARD Act earlier this year, credit card companies told Congress they needed more time to implement the bill's reforms, and Congress accommodated them. Rather than phase out these practices, however, credit card companies have used this extra time to declare open season on their customers. If credit card companies can increase abuse on a moment's notice, then surely they can end consumer abuse in short order. Credit card issuers have shown they cannot be trusted to act in the interest of the American consumer. It is time to force credit card companies to finally deal honestly with American taxpayers and comply with the reforms passed earlier this year. I thank Senators Schumer, Harkin, Levin, Bingaman, Tester, and Merkley for cosponsoring the Expedited CARD Reform for Consumers Act. In addition, along with Senate Banking Committee Chairman Dodd, today I cosponsored a bill that would immediately freeze interest rates on existing credit card balances. This is an important bill that will allow consumers to pay off their credit card debt at the interest rate they consented to when they took on that debt. It is a matter of fairness. I look forward to working with Chairman Dodd and colleagues from both parties to pass these important bills as quickly as possible.