Ron Wyden

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, as Senator Grassley has said, Senator Grassley, Senator McCaskill, and I have always maintained that there is no legitimate reason for Senators to keep holds they have placed with their leaders secret for any period of time. In fact, for quite some time, we have made a practice of immediately disclosing any hold we place in the Congressional Record, and that has been at the heart of our resolution, in my judgment. Would my friend from Iowa agree?

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I call up S. Res. 28, the Wyden-Grassley- McCaskill resolution to end secret holds.

Mr. WYDEN. Yes, the Senator from Iowa makes a good point. Our resolution turns the Notice of Intent to Object calendar into a one- stop shop for recording information about objections made to covered requests. At the same time, some have asked us--what happens if a matter that had been objected to later passes? Shouldn't the clerk just remove the relevant information from the Notice of Intent to Object calendar in that situation? It seems to me that makes sense and such action by the clerk would be keeping with the intent of our resolution.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce critical forest legislation for my home State of Oregon. This is legislation that I introduced in the last Congress. Unfortunately, despite making significant progress and gaining the support of the administration, my legislation did not get passed before Congress adjourned. But the need remains as great as ever and it remains one of the top priorities for my State. So today, early in this new Congress, I am reintroducing the bill and sending the message that this urgent priority needs to get done. I am pleased that my colleague from Oregon, Senator Merkley, has joined me today in introducing this bill. Like me, he recognizes the severe needs in our forests and in the forest dependent communities. For too many decades, Oregon has been at war with itself over the fate of its forests. Nowhere has the negative impact of this battle been greater than in Oregon's eastside forests. Over-logging and disastrous fire suppression policies of the past gave way over time to excessive litigation and gridlock. That excessive litigation and gridlock has resulted in millions of acres of Oregon's Federal forest landscape containing choked, overstocked stands that are at great risk of uncharacteristic catastrophic fires, insect infestations and disease. Controversial logging that holds the industry and the environment hostage to competing ideologies serves no one's interest. The focus should be on areas that everyone agrees desperately need management: to thin and restore our forests and watersheds, and to reduce hazardous fuels putting our forests at risk. That is why I introduced legislation in the last Congress to begin to tackle the challenges facing Oregon's Eastside forests. Leaders on both sides of these difficult issues came together with me after intense negotiations to bring peace, jobs, and a healthier tomorrow to the 8.3 million acres on the 6 Federal forests in eastern and central Oregon. Those leaders realized that each side had armed itself politically enough to survive, but not enough to succeed. With each passing month and each attempted timber sale and threatened lawsuit, our inability to take action, our inability to address the needs of Oregon's declining forests means that they are growing more at risk of preventable fire and disease. Leaders on both sides of this issue realized that unless something fundamental changes, Oregon's Federal forest landscape, with millions of acres of choked, at-risk forest in desperate need of management, millions of acres of old growth, species habitat, and watersheds face an uncertain future. Timber executives came together with leaders of the Oregon environmental community to take shared responsibility for saving our endangered forests, following months of intense negotiations to reach an agreement on legislation. Since my bill was introduced in the last Congress, there have been continuing discussions and negotiations as my stakeholders and I have worked with the Administration and the Energy and Natural Resources Committee to get the bill ready for passage in the Senate. Today's bill reflects some of those changes, but it preserves the core elements of the agreement that I crafted with the stakeholders to this agreement--a push to increase the timber produced from our national forests, landscape scale restoration efforts and protections for watersheds and old growth. Today in eastern Oregon we are down to only a small handful of surviving mills. Without far greater certainty of supply and an immediate increase in merchantable timber, more mills will close. If that happens, our Eastside forests will pay the price. Without mills to process saw logs and other merchantable material from forest restoration projects, there will be no restoration of our Eastside forests. Fortunately leaders on both sides of this issue recognize that and that is why they set aside their differences to forge an agreement. Job One must be saving the remaining infrastructure of forestry-- Oregon's mills and its timber workers--in central and eastern Oregon while preserving our old growth and watersheds. My stakeholders and I worked very hard on the agreement and to advance this legislation. As I predicted, we have already seen our share of challenges. But I have great faith that we will stand firm to see this legislation implemented. I am not going to let Congressional gridlock stop the historic progress that has been made on forestry issues in Oregon. This issue is simply too important. I also want to point out that none of our efforts will succeed unless Oregon Federal forests are also adequately funded to properly manage and restore these valuable Federal assets. Together, as a team, we will fight for the funding to put our people back to work and restore the health of our forests. I want to thank my stakeholders for their support and tireless work in crafting this agreement and ultimately in working with me through the legislative process. I am proud to introduce this legislation today, and I am going to keep working with all the folks in my State who are willing to talk in good faith about restoring our eastside forests.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, tonight's State of the Union Address is a unique opportunity for the President to speak directly to the American people and offer his course for the country. The President is promoting trade as part of his agenda and I commend him for highlighting global competitiveness as an economic imperative. With the upcoming debate on the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement, the President has an opportunity to speak candidly with the American people about the benefits and challenges posed by trade. Doing this supports the case that the United States needs new policies to rise to the challenges of a global economy. In order to avoid a divisive, ugly fight over trade, I would like to hear the President say in his speech that he will seek to establish a new compact between workers, business, and government about how to increase our competitiveness in the global economy. It is important to try to reach this consensus before Congress is asked to consider the controversial free-trade agreements, FTAs, reached with Korea, Colombia, and Panama. The President has already begun down this path by ramping up efforts to combat unfair trade practices and establishing the National Export Initiative with the goal of doubling exports over the next 5 years. These are both important strategies. In approaching the pending FTAs, it is vital that he talk about more than just exports; he must also highlight the value of imports, two-way trade, and the global supply chain. This can only be done through candid conversation, one the Nation richly deserves. If our debate draws only from the same talking points that both sides have been using for the last 20 years, the truth will be sidelined as proponents oversell the potential merits of the agreements and opponents oversell the potential pitfalls. That would be a disservice to the country and represent a profound missed opportunity for the President. Take the pending trade agreement with Korea as an example. This is the most economically meaningful FTA since NAFTA. To help understand the impact of this agreement, I sought the help of the staff of the independent International Trade Commission, ITC. In 2007, the ITC found that the agreement would have a limited impact on job creation, partly because of the assumptions the ITC made in its analysis. Because the economic landscape in 2010 is profoundly different than it was in 2007, I asked staff of the ITC to provide an updated assessment of the agreement using conditions that reflect today's economic reality. Based on these updated results, the FTA has the potential to create about 280,000 new American jobs and boost U.S. economic output by $27 billion each year. At the same time, these projections show that thousands of Americans currently employed in manufacturing could lose their jobs. Neither the President nor Congress can ignore these families, and it is our job to enlarge what I call the Winners' Circle to ensure that trade is a benefit to Americans in all our communities. When American firms and their workers are as competitive as they can be, they can better tap foreign markets opened by trade agreements to spur the domestic economy and produce more good-paying jobs here at home. The Department of Labor's chief economist recently testified that jobs related to international trade typically pay more and offer better benefits. However, when I talk with leading CEOs and labor economists, I hear the same concern: If we want our economy to grow at its full potential, we need more workers with the tools to compete. In tonight's speech I would like to hear the President talk about proposals that will guarantee workers' career-long, affordable access to continuing education and skills upgrading so that businesses always have the most productive and trained workforce they need. We expand the Winners' Circle by making it easier for workers to move from one job or career to the next and by making America the most attractive place to work and live for anyone who has the skills, the brains, and the ambition to succeed. Making it easier for companies with obsolete technology to retool to meet 21st-century global competition further expands the Winner's Circle. This means a tax system that rewards the global growth of American firms while fostering investment in production and employment here at home. In the coming months, President Obama has an opportunity to forge a new, bipartisan consensus about trade and increasing foreign competitiveness. If he succeeds at this, not only does he succeed in passing these trade agreements but, far more importantly, he equips Americas workers and businesses to drive the economy forward.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, Senator Udall and Senator Merkley have waited at great length to make their remarks. I wish to propound a unanimous consent at this time. At this point, Senator Udall would be the next speaker. There would be a Republican who would speak next. I am very hopeful it will be Senator Grassley because he and I have been partners for almost 14 years in this effort to force the Senate to do public business in public and get rid of these secret holds. So after Senator Udall, there would be Senator Grassley. After Senator Grassley, there would be my friend and colleague Senator Merkley who would speak. At that time there would be a Republican who would be next in the queue to speak. So my unanimous consent request at that point is--I would like to be able, for up to 30 minutes, to have the bipartisan sponsors of the effort to get rid of secret holds once and for all, including the distinguished Presiding Officer, to have up to 30 minutes for a colloquy on this bipartisan effort to eliminate secret holds.

Mr. WYDEN. Then, after Senator Merkley, there would be another Republican who would be in a position to speak for 15 minutes, and at that point under the unanimous consent request we would be able to discuss this bipartisan effort to eliminate secret holds for up to 30 minutes.

Mr. WYDEN. I am very open to that. I think it is an excellent suggestion.

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I think Senator Harkin has made an excellent suggestion. Unless Senator Alexander or anyone on the other side has a problem with that, let's modify the unanimous consent request I have made to incorporate Senator Harkin's suggestion.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, before he leaves the floor, let me thank Senator Alexander for the discussions he has had with me on this issue. Senator McConnell has also spoken with me about this. I wish we were getting this done today, largely because this would give us a chance on the first day of the Senate's new session to send a message that once and for all we were deep-sixing secrecy, that we were saying public business ought to be done in public. I wish it were being done today but I understand completely the sentiments of the Senator from Tennessee and the fact that he is willing to work with me is something I appreciate. As I have indicated, there are obviously significant differences between the parties about how to reform the rules of the Senate. What I hope will be done--certainly the very first day that the Senate comes back and is in a position to formally act, which appears to be January 24--is once and for all we would bring Democrats and Republicans together around an extraordinarily important change in the Senate procedures that Senator Grassley and I have been trying to change for literally 15 years. Particularly with the energy and enthusiasm Senator McCaskill has brought to the cause, I think we are now on the cusp of being able to finally get this done. It has been clear that if you walk up and down the Main Streets of this country, people do not know what a secret hold is. Probably a lot of people think it is a hair spray. The fact of the matter is there are practically more versions of secret holds in the Senate than there are in pro wrestling. But what a secret hold is really all about, it is one of the most extraordinary powers an individual Senator has here in the Senate and it can be exercised without any transparency and without any accountability whatsoever. What a secret hold is all about is one Senator can block the American people, the entire country, from learning about a piece of legislation that can involve billions of dollars, scores and scores of people, or a nomination with the ability to influence the lives of all Americans. One Senator can block that consideration without owning up to the fact that Senator is the one who is defying the public's right to know about how Senate business is blocked. That is wrong. It is not about how Republicans see it, or Democrats see it, it is just common sense. Most people say, when you tell them that a Senator can block an enormously important piece of legislation or a nomination that affects millions of people and they can do it in secret, I can't believe you have those kinds of rules. The fact is, that is the way the Senate operates. Suffice it to say it is getting worse. A few days ago, for example, Chief Justice Roberts said that the number of vacancies on our courts is creating a judicial emergency. Those are the words of Chief Justice Roberts. At least 19 Federal judges have been approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously or near unanimously and never got a vote on the floor of the Senate. Not one Senator has publicly taken responsibility for worsening the judicial crisis that Chief Justice Roberts has been decrying over the last few days. Think about that. The Chief Justice of the United States during the Christmas holidays included in his annual report on the Judiciary that the delay in confirming federal judges is creating an emergency in the judicial system. Chief Justice Roberts, in my view, is correct. I think we do have an emergency. We have been trying to get several judges in the State of Oregon approved, Senator Merkley and I have been working to get this done. But these nominees and others have been blocked and no Member of the Senate will publicly take responsibility for worsening this crisis that Chief Justice Roberts is appropriately so concerned about. We have tried in the past with legislation to end secret holds. We actually got a law passed at one time to get rid of secret holds. We have tried with pledges from the leadership of both political parties. In every instance, the defenders of secrecy have found their way around the requirements and, in my view, the public interest. I will make two points and then I want to allow Senator McCaskill to have a chance to address this issue. There are two points with respect to why this effort to end secret holds would be different. The first is that every hold here in the Senate, after the passage of this bipartisan resolution, would have a public owner. Every single hold would have a public owner. Second, there would be consequences. In the past, there have not been consequences for the individual who would object anonymously. In fact, the individual who would object would usually send someone else out to do their objecting for them and there would be complete anonymity for, essentially, all concerned because the person who would be objecting would be in effect saying this is not my doing, I am doing it for somebody else. The heart of this bipartisan compromise is to make sure that every hold has a public owner and there would be consequences. There may be a Senator around here who becomes known as ``Senator Obstruction.'' Senator Obstruction is the one who is trying to block public business. Let him explain it to the American people. I will have more to say about it in a little bit, and there is the possibility of other colleagues coming to speak. But Senator McCaskill has brought the kind of energy and passion to this that has made it possible for us to, as I say, be on the cusp of finally forcing, here in the Senate, public business to be done in public. I thank her for all her help and will allow her to take the time. She said she thought she might speak for around 10 minutes. Senator Klobuchar, who has also been a great and passionate advocate of open government, will also speak, and for colleagues who have an interest we have 30 minutes of time. I say to Senator McCaskill, with appreciation for all she has done, the time is hers.

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of the bipartisan Wyden- Grassley-McCaskill-Collins resolution to end secret holds, which is at the desk.

Mr. WYDEN. How much time remains on our side?

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I do not see any of our colleagues who want to speak on the bipartisan efforts to end secret holds, so let me make a couple of comments in wrapping up. The first is, Senator Grassley and I and others who have been at this for so long have been willing in the past to just put a statement in the Congressional Record when, in the handful of instances, we thought it was important to block a particular piece of legislation or a nomination. We felt it was important to be publicly accountable. All we are asking is that principle of openness, transparency, and government in the sunshine apply to all Members of the Senate. The fact is, secrecy has real consequences. I mentioned the fact that Chief Justice Roberts has been so concerned about the judicial emergency he has seen develop in the court system. I saw during the lameduck session, on a bipartisan bill Senator Cornyn and I spent many months on to combat sex trafficking, the consequences of a secret hold. When our bill passed the Senate, it went over to the House of Representatives, was passed in the House, and then came back to the Senate and was blocked secretly. And this was a bipartisan bill to allow us to strengthen the tools law enforcement would have in order to fight sex trafficking, to provide urgently needed shelters to sex trafficking victims. A bipartisan bill Senator Cornyn and I spent many months on did not become law during the lameduck session because of a secret hold. A lot of Senators have seen exactly these kinds of problems with judges and U.S. attorney candidates. We had both from my home State, two judges who couldn't be considered because of a hold and we could not identify who was objecting, the same with the U.S. attorney nominee. These are the real consequences of secret holds. The big winners in these secret holds are the lobbyists. The lobbyists benefit tremendously from secret holds. Practically every Senator has received requests from a lobbyist asking if the Senator would put a secret hold on a bill or a nomination in order to kill it without getting any public debate and without the lobbyist's fingerprints appearing anywhere. If you can get a Senator to go out and put an anonymous hold on a bill, you have then hit the lobbyist jackpot. No lobbyist can win more significantly than by getting a Senator to secretly object because the Senator is protected by the cloak of anonymity, but so is the lobbyist. With a secret hold, Senators can play both sides of the street. They can give a lobbyist a victory for their clients without alienating potential or future clients. Given the number of instances where I have heard of lobbyists asking for secret holds, I wish to say that those who oppose our efforts to end secret holds are basically saying we ought to give lobbyists an extra tool, an extension of the tools they already have in order to advocate for their clients and defy public accountability. We passed stricter ethics requirements with respect to lobbyists. But it looks to me to be the height of hypocrisy if the Senate adopts a variety of changes to curtail lobbying, as has been done in the past, and at the same time allows lobbyists to continue to benefit, as so many special interests have, from secret holds. This is the opportunity, after a decade and a half, for the public to get a fair shake and for the public interest to come first. We have tried this in the past. We have tried this in the past with pledges and by passing a law and each time the supporters of secrecy found ways around it. But I think the public has caught on. Suffice to say, there are going to be plenty of differences between Democrats and Republicans with respect to how to reform the rules of the Senate. What I think has come to light is, it doesn't pass the smell test to keep arguing that Senate business ought to be done in secret. The American people don't buy that anymore. They think this ought to be an open institution, a place where every Senator is held accountable. This time it is going to be different. There are going to be public owners of any hold. There are going to be consequences for any Senator who tries to block a bill or a nomination in secret. This is going to be an important vote when we come back, a very important vote, and finally one that will require that public business in the Senate be done in public. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Minnesota.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. I thank the Senator.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, briefly, it was so important for me to be here today because don't ask, don't tell is wrong. I don't care who you love. If you love this country enough to risk your life for it, you should not have to hide who you are. You ought to be able to serve. The history of our wonderful Nation is spotted with wrongs, but this institution is at its best when it corrects those. That is the opportunity we will have today. Don't ask, don't tell has resulted in the discharge of over 14,000 patriotic and talented service members who were otherwise qualified to serve their country. A 2005 Government Accountability Office report says nearly 10 percent of those discharged under don't ask, don't tell have been linguists trained in critical languages such as Arabic, Farsi, and Chinese. As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, let me tell you that turning away Arabic, Farsi, and Chinese speakers is bad for national security. It makes it harder for us to win the war on terror. Don't just take my word for it. The fact is, the military now understands how important it is to make this change. Today, the Senate has the opportunity to be on the right side of history. Don't ask, don't tell is a wrong that should never have been perpetrated. Let's move to end it today. Again, let me say thank you to all of you. I look forward to being with all of you next year. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, Senators, let me thank all of you for your many kindnesses over the last 48 hours. When news about your prostate is ricocheting around the blogosphere, all the calls, notes, and even offers to object on my behalf have meant a lot. I only want to say that I just hope this encourages everybody to go out and get those physicals. What this is all about is prevention. We can agree that when it comes to health care that we all ought to focus on prevention.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I wish to commend Senator Warner and Senator Chambliss in particular for their important work, and tomorrow it will be even more important given that this agreement will pass tonight. There is always another election around the corner, a big array of special interest groups that need to be satisfied, and the constant scream of public opinion polls that politicians live and die for. Why take action that could offend a group today if you can put it off for a while? In my view, the agreement that will pass tonight is a victory for the politics of procrastination. At a time when Americans are swimming in debt, more water will be put into the pool. Instead of taking steps to fix the market-distorting, job-killing Tax Code--last overhauled a quarter of a century ago when China and India were blips in the global economy--this vote, tonight, will prop up our broken Tax Code. Millions of Americans are out of work, small businesses are closing their doors, and instead of finding permanent solutions to the problem, the agreement is smiling like Scarlett O'Hara and saying: Fiddle-dee-dee, I will think about it tomorrow. The agreement doesn't come close to what is needed to get our economy back on track. In many ways, this deal will make the problems worse. For one, it adds more to the deficit than TARP, more than the 2009 stimulus bill--858 billion more dollars will be added to the national debt. At a time when our economy desperately needs to create more jobs, the agreement continues the same tax policies that failed to create jobs for the past 10 years. At a time when businesses are saying that uncertainty is keeping them from hiring and investing, this deal increases that uncertainty by essentially turning the entire personal income tax system into a temporary structure that will all expire in a year or two. And at a time when China is planning to invest a trillion dollars in crucial industries for its long-term growth, there is nothing in this agreement that makes so much as a downpayment for investing in our Nation's future. It did not have to be this way. As Senator Warner and colleagues have mentioned, there was a blueprint provided by the deficit commission. I don't happen to agree with everything in it, but clearly it was a very important blueprint. In the 1980s--and I see Senator Alexander here, who clearly remembers those days--President Reagan and the Democrats worked for bipartisan tax reform to clean out the loopholes, hold down the rates, and keep progressivity. In the 2 years, colleagues, after Democrats and Ronald Reagan worked together, our economy grew by 6.3 million jobs--twice the number created between 2001 and 2008 when tax policy was purely partisan. I don't think it had to be this way. Senator Warner and Senator Chambliss tried very hard to add a provision that might at some point insert consequences for inaction. Colleagues--and I will close with this--nothing will happen in this town where there is this culture of procrastination unless there are some consequences for inaction. There are provisions in this measure tonight that I support very strongly--unemployment insurance, help for the middle class and small business. I was willing to extend the whole Bush-era program for a year if it were done in a way to force action. But that is not going to be done. Tonight, I intend to vote no. Tomorrow, I will be back with Senator Warner and Senator Chambliss to build on the good work of the deficit commission, build on the good work Democrats and Ronald Reagan did in the 1980s to give us a model so that finally in this country we tackle the major problems--debt reduction and fixing the job-killing Tax Code--and bring back the middle class to the prosperity they deserve. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today, I am pleased to reintroduce the Medicare Enhancements for Needed Drugs Act, the MEND Act, with my colleague, Senator Olympia Snowe. One of the most important promises of the original Medicare Part D debate, and from the more recent health reform debate, is to drive cost containment in the field of prescription drugs. Allowing Medicare to negotiate for drug prices would be a groundbreaking cost containment measure for a senior who might otherwise be bankrupted by their prescription drug costs. The legislation introduced today clearly prohibits price setting or the creation of a uniform formulary. It simply allows the Medicare program to be a smart shopper by allowing Medicare to go into the market and use its clout just like any other big purchaser. Certainly, there is a significant group of special interests in this town that do not want the Federal Government to be a smart shopper. The number of lobbyists that have worked against this legislation over the years has been just staggering. For example, the Center for Responsive Politics estimated that last year the pharmaceutical industry spent over $250 million for lobbying to squash initiatives such as this. And make no mistake about what the special interests who oppose this legislation want to do. They would rather soak senior citizens and the taxpayers and add to the budget deficit than to have to negotiate with the Federal Government. According to CMS actuaries, the Medicare Part D drug benefit is already funded with over $50 billion a year in taxpayer dollars and will cost the country substantially more in the future. To be good stewards of taxpayer dollars, to be able to strengthen the program and to help seniors truly save, Congress must look toward using every logical tool to lower costs. The Congressional Budget Office has indicated that the type of targeted approach to negotiating drug pricing in the MEND Act could potentially generate cost savings for the Medicare program and for beneficiaries. It would be irresponsible for the Congress not to try and potentially achieve savings for a program that so many Americans rely on. The legislation that Senator Snowe and I put forward today is a commonsense proposal. Having the Secretary negotiate for more competitive drug pricing is an idea that has broad public support. An AARP poll reported that 87 percent of United States adult residents support government negotiation of prescription drug prices for the Medicare benefit. Young, old, rich, poor, Democrat, Republican--our citizens strongly support this approach and probably wonder why it has taken so long to implement it. Under the MEND Act, the Secretary could negotiate in any circumstance, but must negotiate in several instances: for single source drugs for which there is no therapeutic equivalent; drugs for which taxpayer funding was substantial in its research and development; and for any fallback prescription plan that Medicare must provide. In addition, this legislation requires the Secretary to provide a fallback plan if there is not comprehensive coverage, including coverage for the so-called ``doughnut hole'', available in a region. I have always believed that negotiating is not a one-size-fits-all proposition. That is why my good friend, Senator Snowe, and I have repeatedly proposed language that includes no uniform formulary. This legislation emphasizes the concept of ``bargaining power''--not price controls, not rules set in Washington, DC, not a one-size-fits-all approach, nothing that would discourage innovation among pharmaceutical companies, but simply ``bargaining power.'' All Americans are affected by prescription drug costs. Particularly hard hit are older people, particularly low-income older people, and people with large prescription drug bills. AARP publishes an annual Rx Watchdog report. They note that for the nearly 200 brand-name medications most commonly used by older people, the costs of those medicines had gone up by 9.7 percent over a recent 12-month period, even though the general inflation rate was below 1 percent. This situation is unreasonable and unsustainable, and it is hurting our most vulnerable citizens. As noted by AARP, seniors are affected more than any other segment of the U.S. population by prescription drug cost. Every dollar we can save for a senior citizen is also a dollar saved for the taxpayers, and when you are talking about nearly 30 million seniors enrolled in Part D coverage, that starts to add up to real money for the Medicare program. If we can save even a little bit we owe it to seniors to do just that. There are seniors who have to pay thousands of dollars for a cancer drug when there are no other options for treatment. Interestingly, some of these life-saving drugs have been developed with our tax dollars, through research sponsored by Federal agencies such as the NIH. Whenever I am in Oregon at a town hall meeting, I am always asked, ``How many times do we have to pay for drugs? Our tax dollars go toward research and development, and then taxpayers have to pay again when the drug is patented and put on the open market.'' In cases where substantial Federal research dollars went into creating the drug, I believe the Secretary ought to step in and see what kind of a better deal can be garnered on behalf of seniors. I would like to acknowledge Senator Snowe's efforts on behalf of our Medicare beneficiaries and taxpayers. She and I have worked on this particular issue for a number of years. This bipartisan proposal is an effort to follow up on the promise she and I made to our citizens back home to improve the Part D drug benefit. I thank Senator Snowe, who is always trying to find common, bipartisan ground, which is, of course, the only way you get important work done in the Senate. This legislation certainly qualifies as important work. I urge my colleagues to join with us in supporting this bipartisan legislation to contain prescription drug costs for our Nation's seniors.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today, I am pleased to reintroduce the Medicare Enhancements for Needed Drugs Act, the MEND Act, with my colleague, Senator Olympia Snowe. One of the most important promises of the original Medicare Part D debate, and from the more recent health reform debate, is to drive cost containment in the field of prescription drugs. Allowing Medicare to negotiate for drug prices would be a groundbreaking cost containment measure for a senior who might otherwise be bankrupted by their prescription drug costs. The legislation introduced today clearly prohibits price setting or the creation of a uniform formulary. It simply allows the Medicare program to be a smart shopper by allowing Medicare to go into the market and use its clout just like any other big purchaser. Certainly, there is a significant group of special interests in this town that do not want the Federal Government to be a smart shopper. The number of lobbyists that have worked against this legislation over the years has been just staggering. For example, the Center for Responsive Politics estimated that last year the pharmaceutical industry spent over $250 million for lobbying to squash initiatives such as this. And make no mistake about what the special interests who oppose this legislation want to do. They would rather soak senior citizens and the taxpayers and add to the budget deficit than to have to negotiate with the Federal Government. According to CMS actuaries, the Medicare Part D drug benefit is already funded with over $50 billion a year in taxpayer dollars and will cost the country substantially more in the future. To be good stewards of taxpayer dollars, to be able to strengthen the program and to help seniors truly save, Congress must look toward using every logical tool to lower costs. The Congressional Budget Office has indicated that the type of targeted approach to negotiating drug pricing in the MEND Act could potentially generate cost savings for the Medicare program and for beneficiaries. It would be irresponsible for the Congress not to try and potentially achieve savings for a program that so many Americans rely on. The legislation that Senator Snowe and I put forward today is a commonsense proposal. Having the Secretary negotiate for more competitive drug pricing is an idea that has broad public support. An AARP poll reported that 87 percent of United States adult residents support government negotiation of prescription drug prices for the Medicare benefit. Young, old, rich, poor, Democrat, Republican--our citizens strongly support this approach and probably wonder why it has taken so long to implement it. Under the MEND Act, the Secretary could negotiate in any circumstance, but must negotiate in several instances: for single source drugs for which there is no therapeutic equivalent; drugs for which taxpayer funding was substantial in its research and development; and for any fallback prescription plan that Medicare must provide. In addition, this legislation requires the Secretary to provide a fallback plan if there is not comprehensive coverage, including coverage for the so-called ``doughnut hole'', available in a region. I have always believed that negotiating is not a one-size-fits-all proposition. That is why my good friend, Senator Snowe, and I have repeatedly proposed language that includes no uniform formulary. This legislation emphasizes the concept of ``bargaining power''--not price controls, not rules set in Washington, DC, not a one-size-fits-all approach, nothing that would discourage innovation among pharmaceutical companies, but simply ``bargaining power.'' All Americans are affected by prescription drug costs. Particularly hard hit are older people, particularly low-income older people, and people with large prescription drug bills. AARP publishes an annual Rx Watchdog report. They note that for the nearly 200 brand-name medications most commonly used by older people, the costs of those medicines had gone up by 9.7 percent over a recent 12-month period, even though the general inflation rate was below 1 percent. This situation is unreasonable and unsustainable, and it is hurting our most vulnerable citizens. As noted by AARP, seniors are affected more than any other segment of the U.S. population by prescription drug cost. Every dollar we can save for a senior citizen is also a dollar saved for the taxpayers, and when you are talking about nearly 30 million seniors enrolled in Part D coverage, that starts to add up to real money for the Medicare program. If we can save even a little bit we owe it to seniors to do just that. There are seniors who have to pay thousands of dollars for a cancer drug when there are no other options for treatment. Interestingly, some of these life-saving drugs have been developed with our tax dollars, through research sponsored by Federal agencies such as the NIH. Whenever I am in Oregon at a town hall meeting, I am always asked, ``How many times do we have to pay for drugs? Our tax dollars go toward research and development, and then taxpayers have to pay again when the drug is patented and put on the open market.'' In cases where substantial Federal research dollars went into creating the drug, I believe the Secretary ought to step in and see what kind of a better deal can be garnered on behalf of seniors. I would like to acknowledge Senator Snowe's efforts on behalf of our Medicare beneficiaries and taxpayers. She and I have worked on this particular issue for a number of years. This bipartisan proposal is an effort to follow up on the promise she and I made to our citizens back home to improve the Part D drug benefit. I thank Senator Snowe, who is always trying to find common, bipartisan ground, which is, of course, the only way you get important work done in the Senate. This legislation certainly qualifies as important work. I urge my colleagues to join with us in supporting this bipartisan legislation to contain prescription drug costs for our Nation's seniors.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, with the passage of S. 2925, the Senate is sending to the House the first ever all-out battle plan to defeat one of the fastest growing criminal enterprises in our country; that is, trafficking children for sex. Senator Cornyn and I have worked together on this issue for many months on a bipartisan basis with tremendous help from Chairman Leahy, from Senator Sessions, from Senator Durbin, and Senator Kyl, and before I begin my statement tonight, I wish to express my thanks to them. This is a textbook for how the Senate ought to work together on an important issue in a bipartisan way, and I am very grateful to my colleagues for their leadership. When I first approached Senator Cornyn, he said in our very first conversation: This has nothing to do with Democrats and Republicans; this is about doing what is right for young people. So I am very grateful to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for the support they have shown on this matter. Each year, an estimated 100,000 children in America are trafficked for sex. They are recruited by violent criminals, and their average age is between 12 and 14. The fact is, sex trafficking in children is modern day slavery, pure and simple. Tragically, my home State of Oregon has become a hub for those who would exploit women and young girls, and the tragedy is my State is not alone. What we have seen--and this was brought out in hearings--is that the reason this is such a fast-growing crime is it is so easy to perpetrate and there is such big money involved. For example, experts in the field said for some time, you would see gangs zero in on drugs. The fact is, trafficking in children, according to many of the experts, is easier than trafficking in drugs, and today, with the Internet and the anonymity that the Internet provides these dangerous criminals who traffic in children, it is, as I say, one of the fastest growing crimes in American life. I got a sense of what this was all about this summer when I had a chance to go out with Portland police officers in my hometown on 82nd Avenue. What I saw is something I will never forget: a heart-wrenching example of why this bipartisan legislation is so important. I saw a 15- year-old girl essentially out there with the tools of the trade. She had a cell phone so she could be in constant contact with her pimp, and all night long they were getting messages: Made $80, made $100 on a customer here or somewhere else. So she had her cell phone. She had a butcher knife because she knew she needed a butcher knife to protect herself, and she had a purse full of condoms, because she knew she was going to have a bunch more customers during the course of the evening. So what you have--and this is not primarily about statistics. If one young woman, whether it is in the State of West Virginia or Oregon or anywhere else, is prostituted this way, trafficked this way, that is one young woman too many. What the Senate has done now with the passage of S. 2925 is draw a line in the sand and say, for the first time, that we are going to put in place a comprehensive strategy, bring together the law enforcement people and the human services people to deal with this in a way that is going to allow us to send a message on the streets of this country--and particularly the interstate highways which have become such a magnet for sex trafficking--that the odds are going to be different; that this time those who traffic in young women are going to face real prospects of a deterrent. The reality is these young women don't end up working as prostitutes by accident. The growing army of pimps I mentioned--violent, ruthless criminals--see this group as an ideal group of young people to prey on. The fact is, a pimp can make $200,000 a year trafficking just one victim. Of course, many of those pimps traffic multiple victims on any particular occasion. Once a young girl is under the control of a pimp, it is very difficult for that youngster to escape. The pimps use violence to control girls, as well as traumatize them. They move the girls constantly from city to city, keeping them isolated from any source of support and preventing them from developing any kind of other more healthy relationships. In talking to law enforcement officials, I learned that removing sex trafficking victims from the control of a pimp is very difficult. It is one that requires training, resources, and in effect a strategy, bringing together law enforcement people and social services people in order to break this degrading and often deadly spiral of sex trafficking in youngsters. There are a variety of needs these young people have. One that Senator Cornyn and I learned about in the course of our work is the need for dedicated shelter for these youngsters who have been trafficked. Without shelter, for example, there is no place to keep trafficking victims safe from the pimps and to give them the counseling and services they need. If there is no safe place for the victims to stay, there is no way the law enforcement authorities can build a case against the pimp. So this is a perfect example of how the important work being done by our social service providers, in terms of the work in the shelters, is absolutely a prerequisite to tough, aggressive prosecution of the pimps because if you don't have a safe place for the young women, there is no place for them to get the health care and services and counseling they need. In fact, the night when I was out in Portland and saw, in particular, that 15-year-old with what I call the tools of the trade, when the police picked her up--and Portland's professionals in the sex trafficking field are extraordinarily talented. I saw that firsthand, and officials from around the country tell me the same thing. One of the big questions they were faced with was, where would they send the young women they found that evening for the next couple of days in order to just work out a more permanent living arrangement? In Portland, we have been able to do it. But even in our city, which is now mobilizing all through the community, it has been very difficult. At present, there are only about 70 shelter beds for sex trafficking victims in the whole country. So that is why I mentioned that pimps know their chances of getting prosecuted for forcing girls to engage in prostitution are very low. We have some laws on the books, but we also need a strategy bringing together shelters, training for law enforcement officials and other resources if we are going to have the strongest possible battle plan against sex trafficking. Senator Cornyn and I got together to introduce this legislation. We would set up what amounts to model projects across the country to test out the best approaches for combating sex trafficking of children. We do make clear these approaches have to bring together law enforcement people and social services. It makes me very proud. The Chair, having served as Governor of West Virginia, knows from time to time you see some debates between law enforcement people and social services folks. Law enforcement people believe prosecution is the way to go. The social services folks believe their model is more effective. What Senator Cornyn and I found is that this is an area where the law enforcement people support the social services folks and vice versa because they know both elements--social services and law enforcement-- are going to be necessary to fight this scourge. I mentioned shelters. There would also be block grants available for mental and physical health care, treatment for substance abuse and sexual abuse, and also assistance with trauma care. There would be help for the victims with food, clothing, and other necessities; and together it means the youngsters--primarily young women--who are going to be in these shelters will know from the time they get to the shelter that caring individuals want them to have a different life. That is what drew me to this legislation. When you are talking about preying on young people, every Member of the Senate is concerned. What I think galvanized my attention was that a lot of these young women don't think anybody cares about them except their pimp. They have gotten to the point in life where they believe there isn't anybody in their corner. Their pimp says: You know, sweetheart, I care about you. You are what's really important to me. Let's just make some money, and eventually you will be out on your own. What you have with these shelters, and also the law enforcement people I saw in Portland, is young women saying for the first time that there is an adult, a role model, who wants them to have a different life, who wants them to have the prospect of a different future, where they are not degrading themselves, where they are not victimized, where they have a different set of possibilities for their lives. The human services aspects of this legislation are extremely important, and they complement the help that law enforcement would get as well. I was particularly struck, as we got into the law enforcement aspect of this fight against sex trafficking, that there, again, had been some model approaches. The law enforcement official I was particularly impressed with was the Dallas, TX, police sergeant Byron Fassett. He explained to me that without the right training, law enforcement officers would not know how to spot the signs of sex trafficking and would not know how to handle the victims. So Senator Cornyn and I thought, with the counsel of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle, it would be important to provide specialized training for police officers and prosecutors to help them understand how to handle sex trafficking cases. The fact is, Sergeant Fassett of Dallas, TX, can only be at one place at a time. What this legislation is going to do is make it possible for other leaders in the law enforcement field to get the training out across the country, the state-of-the-art approaches about how to best fight the violent criminals who engaged in this activity, and I am very pleased that we were able to make possible part of the grant in this legislation assistance for the law enforcement community. Finally, the bill would address another issue that is a major component of sex trafficking, and that is runaway children. One-third of runaway children are lured into prostitution within 48 hours of leaving their home. The evidence also shows that the children who have run away multiple times are at the greatest risk of being drawn into sex trafficking. So what we are doing in this legislation is making it possible for law enforcement officials to, in effect, make priority the children at greatest risk; that is, these runaways. I am very pleased we were able to work out a bipartisan agreement for our approach in this area. It would be hard to give appropriate thanks to all who participated in this effort--certainly, to do it without keeping you here until breakfast time. Let me name just a small number of the many groups and individuals who provided extremely valuable insight: the Polaris Project, Shared Hope International, National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, the FBI's Innocence Lost Project, and ECPAT-USA. I could go on with the list of many groups. Mr. President, I will tell you I am especially grateful to the faith community for all of their efforts. Throughout this debate, Senator Cornyn and I have been contacted by religious leaders from all over the country, from all particular denominations, talking about how important this legislation is to them; and what they conveyed to us is that this is what they see in their congregations. This is what parents go to bed at night worrying about--the prospect of seeing one of their youngsters caught up in this vicious cycle of degradation, crime, and lost hope for the future. We could not be here tonight if it wasn't for the faith community that, all across the country, contacted their Senators, contacted various civic groups, and made common cause with rallies and marches and petitions. This is what has made this night possible. So I have tried to make sure the Senate knows that a whole host of colleagues on both sides of the aisle have worked on this. I will say my older daughter said the other night: Dad, I have figured it out. You are in the only profession on Earth where somebody your age is considered one of the young guys. I thought about that, because I have had the honor of serving in the Senate for some time--recently was reelected--and I can't recall a time when I felt prouder of the Senate coming together to deal with something that would make a real difference. This one piece of legislation is not going to wipe out this reprehensible, heinous crime, where youngsters who are 12 and 13 and 14 are trafficked for sex. But with this legislation, from Portland, OR, to Portland, ME--and, frankly, this will have benefits internationally because a lot of these youngsters are also trafficked for sex far from the shores of the United States--tonight the Senate is making a difference. Tonight, the Senate is giving hope to parents who are concerned about their kids' future. For young women who are literally going to be hiding tonight near some of these interstates--Interstate 5, which goes all through the West--with the passage of this legislation and, hopefully, quick action by the House, this is a chance to make a difference for these young people. This is what public service is supposed to be all about--making a difference for young people and families and doing it not on the basis of Democrats and Republicans but on the basis of what is right, what is moral, what is just. There are a lot of people who deserve credit here tonight, especially my friend and colleague, Senator Cornyn, but I am very hopeful the House will act on this legislation. I am going to put additional remarks into the Record, but Joel Shapiro, of my office, did yeoman's work on this legislation and deserves considerable credit tonight. I will leave my additional remarks for the Congressional Record, but tonight, through the good-faith efforts of lots of community and faith leaders, there is an opportunity to help reduce one of the fastest growing criminal enterprises in our country--certainly one of the most immoral--the trafficking of young people for sex. With that, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be passed, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and any statements related to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 581, S. 2925.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 699 submitted earlier today.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and any statements related to the resolution be printed in the Record.