Ron Wyden

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce legislation to help encourage Haitian economic development, by promoting U.S.- Haitian trade and investment. The legislation, the Renewing Hope for Haitian Trade and Investment Act of 2010, would in part renew provisions of U.S. trade law that are currently scheduled to expire and which have been critical to the growth of the Haitian apparel sector, which sustains tens of thousands of jobs in Haiti. Apparel is a core industry sector in Haiti, accounting for an estimated 25,000 jobs and 75-80 percent of Haiti's export earnings. The devastating January 12 earthquake in Haiti caused widespread damage to the industry. The damage has caused transportation and assembly production bottlenecks, and compounded existing challenges such as lack of industrial space, poor road and port conditions, unreliable electricity, and the high cost of capital. As of January 2010, Haiti's apparel industry is reportedly running at 50 percent of capacity as a result of the earthquake. Producers hope to increase production to 70 percent of capacity in the next 4-6 weeks, depending on improvements to electricity and water supplies. Most apparel imports from Haiti come into the U.S. free of duties, because of provisions in the Caribbean Basin Trade Partnership Act, CBTPA. Unfortunately, these provisions expire in September of this year. This expiration is dampening interest in placing additional apparel orders, so it is critical that Congress extend this important program, and do so expeditiously. The Renewing Hope for Haitian Trade and Investment Act of 2010 would extend CBTPA for an additional 3 years. Increasingly, producers are using a new program called the Hemispheric Opportunity through Partnership Encouragement, HOPE, program to send Haitian apparel to the U.S. free of duty. While utilization of this program, which began in 2006, is growing, it faced early challenges and has since been amended. The amendments have been helpful, but extending this program would help send a signal to potential investors to go into Haiti and build the factories that will employ hundreds or thousands more Haitian workers. The Renewing Hope for Haitian Trade and Investment Act would ``restart the clock'' on the HOPE program and extend it through 2022. Furthermore, a challenging investment climate and cumbersome Customs procedures for moving goods in and out of Haiti are imposing significant challenges to private-sector Haitian producers. The Renewing Hope for Haitian Trade and Investment Act would help in these areas, too. Over the past few weeks, I have reached out to a broad group of stakeholders in order to identify the near-term challenges that face Haiti's apparel production industry. We focused on identifying short- term constraints that exist because of the January earthquake. I look forward to continuing to work with these stakeholders going forward in order to ensure quick passage of a bill that has a maximum amount of consensus between U.S. and Haitian producers, non-governmental organizations, and others. I would particularly like to acknowledge the leadership of Senator Bill Nelson on this proposal. His keen understanding of Haiti and how U.S. trade laws work to help Haitian economic development was critical to constructing this legislation. I look forward to working with Senators Nelson, Baucus, Grassley, and Chairmen Rangel and Levin on this proposal and other ideas to spur Haiti's economy. Each of these members is a vociferous champion of Haitian economic development, promoted in part by thoughtful trade and investment policies. I encourage all my colleagues to join in supporting this critical legislation to help Haitians who were flattened both economically and literally by last month's earthquake get back on their feet.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce legislation to help encourage Haitian economic development, by promoting U.S.- Haitian trade and investment. The legislation, the Renewing Hope for Haitian Trade and Investment Act of 2010, would in part renew provisions of U.S. trade law that are currently scheduled to expire and which have been critical to the growth of the Haitian apparel sector, which sustains tens of thousands of jobs in Haiti. Apparel is a core industry sector in Haiti, accounting for an estimated 25,000 jobs and 75-80 percent of Haiti's export earnings. The devastating January 12 earthquake in Haiti caused widespread damage to the industry. The damage has caused transportation and assembly production bottlenecks, and compounded existing challenges such as lack of industrial space, poor road and port conditions, unreliable electricity, and the high cost of capital. As of January 2010, Haiti's apparel industry is reportedly running at 50 percent of capacity as a result of the earthquake. Producers hope to increase production to 70 percent of capacity in the next 4-6 weeks, depending on improvements to electricity and water supplies. Most apparel imports from Haiti come into the U.S. free of duties, because of provisions in the Caribbean Basin Trade Partnership Act, CBTPA. Unfortunately, these provisions expire in September of this year. This expiration is dampening interest in placing additional apparel orders, so it is critical that Congress extend this important program, and do so expeditiously. The Renewing Hope for Haitian Trade and Investment Act of 2010 would extend CBTPA for an additional 3 years. Increasingly, producers are using a new program called the Hemispheric Opportunity through Partnership Encouragement, HOPE, program to send Haitian apparel to the U.S. free of duty. While utilization of this program, which began in 2006, is growing, it faced early challenges and has since been amended. The amendments have been helpful, but extending this program would help send a signal to potential investors to go into Haiti and build the factories that will employ hundreds or thousands more Haitian workers. The Renewing Hope for Haitian Trade and Investment Act would ``restart the clock'' on the HOPE program and extend it through 2022. Furthermore, a challenging investment climate and cumbersome Customs procedures for moving goods in and out of Haiti are imposing significant challenges to private-sector Haitian producers. The Renewing Hope for Haitian Trade and Investment Act would help in these areas, too. Over the past few weeks, I have reached out to a broad group of stakeholders in order to identify the near-term challenges that face Haiti's apparel production industry. We focused on identifying short- term constraints that exist because of the January earthquake. I look forward to continuing to work with these stakeholders going forward in order to ensure quick passage of a bill that has a maximum amount of consensus between U.S. and Haitian producers, non-governmental organizations, and others. I would particularly like to acknowledge the leadership of Senator Bill Nelson on this proposal. His keen understanding of Haiti and how U.S. trade laws work to help Haitian economic development was critical to constructing this legislation. I look forward to working with Senators Nelson, Baucus, Grassley, and Chairmen Rangel and Levin on this proposal and other ideas to spur Haiti's economy. Each of these members is a vociferous champion of Haitian economic development, promoted in part by thoughtful trade and investment policies. I encourage all my colleagues to join in supporting this critical legislation to help Haitians who were flattened both economically and literally by last month's earthquake get back on their feet.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, after holding 20 townhall meetings in my home State of Oregon over the past month, I can certainly report that people are hungry for good economic news, particularly news about job creation growing our economy. Our people want fresh ideas that work, and clearly they are saying, and saying passionately, that it is time to set aside government that doesn't work for them. That is why I am proud to come to the floor this afternoon and talk about a positive economic development--a development that has far exceeded the projections and the hopes of those who advocated for it-- and that is the Build America Bonds program. Build America Bonds works, and it works because it puts our people to work at good-paying, family- wage jobs. Mr. President, when I started working on Build America Bonds about 6 years ago with a number of colleagues on the other side of the aisle, it was because I believed there was bipartisan support for shoring up our Nation's crumbling infrastructure and, at the same time, getting our economy back to work. It is a fact that investing in infrastructure, dollar for dollar, is one of the best economic multipliers we have in our country, and it is a way to jump-start economic growth. As communities deal with the recession, I and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to give our communities new tools to finance essential construction projects. What Build America Bonds has always been about is not taking any of the tools out of the toolbox we have today, but putting in some additional ones for our communities. Build America Bonds is certainly not a replacement for direct Federal spending on infrastructure, but I think all people who have looked at this subject understand the need is so great for roads and bridges and water systems and schools that we ought to be looking for all cost- effective, efficient ways to fund this essential infrastructure that does have bipartisan support in the Senate. To report, we thought that maybe getting the Build America Bonds Program off the ground would result in somewhere in the vicinity of $5 to $10 billion worth of additional investment in infrastructure. The program was authorized as part of the stimulus legislation. It did not get off the ground until the middle of the next year, and my colleagues and I thought perhaps the $5 to $10 billion of Build America Bonds that were authorized would allow us to make the case that when the program expires at the end of this year we could call for its renewal. When the year wrapped up, the figures showed that almost $64 billion worth of Build America Bonds had been issued. In fact, a number of independent experts say that Build America Bonds are now the hottest, most attractive vehicle in the municipal bond market. In my home State of Oregon, it has been proven time and time again that private money follows public investment. People get back to work building a bridge, for example, and all the businesses near the construction site get more activity from the people who need their services. Once the project is finished, private investment follows the public investment. That bridge makes it easier for folks to get to work or take their kids to school, and communities grow. As I mentioned, this bill has a long bipartisan lineage. Then-Senator Talent joined with me about 6 years ago for this program. The program would have created a Federal tax credit bonding program to fund investment in transportation infrastructure. Since then, our colleague Senator Thune and four others on both sides of the aisle have joined us to make sure the Senate was on record as saying we can find sensible, commonsense, nonpartisan solutions that address the basic needs this country has to a great extent overlooked. I have mentioned to date more than $60 billion worth of these innovative bonds have funded hundreds of projects in 39 States--fixing our roads and bridges, rebuilding our schools, upgrading our utilities. These are projects that have been funded, I advise my good friend from Delaware, because we had a lot of discussion about exactly what works in infrastructure and what does not. On top of this $60 billion of Build America Bonds infrastructure investment, we have seen $80 billion of direct Federal infrastructure spending that was included in the Recovery Act. So you have a one-two punch now for the first time to mobilize all possible resources to fund infrastructure. You have a significant investment in what is called direct spending. I particularly appreciate what a number of my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee have done in this area, particularly Senator Murray, who has championed our cause in the Pacific Northwest with respect to infrastructure. Senator Harkin, the chairman of the Pensions and Labor Committee, also has done a great job in school construction. I want it understood that those of us who support Build America Bonds see the bonds as a complement to the outstanding work a number of my colleagues whom I have mentioned are doing. This is not to supplant that kind of direct spending effort but to shore it up, to offer additional assistance, particularly additional assistance when the need is so great. As our proposal was developed, we had an opportunity to work with Chairman Baucus and Senator Grassley, the chair and ranking minority member on the Finance Committee, because we wanted to make sure this effort continued to be bipartisan at every step of the way. I am very grateful that Chairman Baucus and Senator Grassley in effect gave us a chance to jump-start this idea, to get it off the ground. The reality is, I suggest to my colleague from Delaware, the Federal Government has never bonded in the transportation area. A lot of States and communities wonder if they would even exist without bonds, but the Federal Government had never bonded in the transportation area. We, our bipartisan coalition, believed a tax credit bond could be especially effective. But because Chairman Baucus and Senator Grassley were willing to bet on our bipartisan coalition, our coalition that said Build America Bonds are going to be an efficient tool, we saw all the predictions for the success of this program exceeded. The reality of Build America Bonds blew past the predictions like a bullet train. Build America Bonds sold like hotcakes, getting desperately needed funding going into local communities, creating jobs, and helping to strengthen our infrastructure. As I have suggested, anyone concerned that in some way this bond program would displace current assistance on infrastructure ought to look at the numbers I have cited. Under the Recovery Act, there was $80 billion for direct Federal infrastructure spending. It has been spent on infrastructure or will be spent within the next year. And Build America Bonds were sold on top of that assistance. Here are some examples of Build America Bonds quickly putting folks to work. In Oregon's Dayton school district, they used Build America Bonds to employ up to 150 people building and remodeling classrooms. By using Build America Bonds, the school district saved an estimated $1.2 million in interest costs. It is a small school district. Those kinds of savings make a difference. Communities in Wisconsin have also used Build America Bonds. One small community used them to lower their financing costs by 2.3 percent, allowing them to turn plans to upgrade roads, sewers, and buildings into reality. One of their leaders told Business Week magazine that without Build America Bonds, ``some projects might not be done'' and ``there would be less employment.'' Recently a CBO/Joint Tax Committee report highlighted a number of other benefits from Build America Bonds. CBO and the Joint Tax Committee found that tax credit bonds, like our Build America Bonds, are more cost effective than tax-exempt bonds. The report also concludes that because the bonds are more attractive to investors, they are more efficient at raising capital. This saves municipalities time and money and effort that can be spent on other priorities. Aside from the fact that the funds are raised efficiently, what I have heard again and again--and I think this is what colleagues are going to be looking at when it comes to infrastructure investment--Build America Bonds get the job done quickly. Because they have to adhere to Federal spending guidelines, all of the bond funds have to be spent within 2 years of the date the bond is issued. This means that money is not just flowing into projects, it is being spent in the short term, paying to build roads and bridges and other infrastructure and putting folks back to work quickly. That is the kind of bang for our buck that Americans are hungry for right now. That is what Build America Bonds deliver. Back in the days before Build America Bonds were issued, the market for normal municipal bonds was almost frozen. It was very hard to sell municipal bonds. It certainly didn't mean the need for financing infrastructure was not there, it was just very hard to get them through the traditional bond market. Build America Bonds have changed that. The private sector, folks who represent the country's largest businesses-- the Chamber of Commerce and National Association of Manufacturers--have been strong supporters of it. Many of the labor groups, the trades in particular, have been supportive of it because clearly business and working families need a working infrastructure to give businesses the security they need to think long term about their future. But it is not just businesses that buy Build America Bonds. Nonprofits, like pension funds, have also found Build America Bonds an attractive investment. Although nonprofits cannot benefit from the tax credits, bond issuers can pass on the value of the tax credits in the form of a higher interest rate for Build America Bonds than other types of bonds. By contrast, traditional tax-exempt municipal bonds are not a good investment for pension funds and other institutional investors that do not pay taxes. So Build America Bonds are especially attractive as a way for nonprofits to invest in American infrastructure that traditional tax-exempt bonds do not provide. I am not surprised, and I think the judgment I have made would be shared by colleagues on the other side of the aisle because a lot of them have been involved over these last 6 years--we are not surprised that Build America Bonds are reinventing the municipal bond market. They have been a good deal for our communities and for all types of investors. They have freed up financing for badly needed infrastructure construction and ensured long-term economic growth. In some cases these bonds, according to people in communities across this country, make the difference between whether infrastructure projects are actually going to get done. In other cases they lower the cost of the projects and allow communities to reinvestment those savings in other projects. By any scenario you look at with respect to this program, this is one that helps local governments, local businesses, and the people who rely on infrastructure for jobs and economic security. My view is that is exactly the kind of solution folks are asking for from the Congress at this time. It is fine to speculate about programs you wish to have considered and you will look at down the road to see if they actually produce. The Obama administration now wants to make Build America Bonds permanent because they have seen the extraordinary response our country is demonstrating. Build America Bonds have produced, and they have produced exactly what was intended: a prompt infrastructure investment in an efficient fashion. I express my appreciation to Chairman Baucus. Under his leadership the Finance Committee, on which I am honored to serve, is currently looking at expanding and improving Build America Bonds in the upcoming jobs bill. I told Secretary Geithner this morning that I had appreciated his leadership and the administration's leadership on this issue. We have some questions about how to proceed--for example, whether, as I would like, Build America Bonds should be devoted to new job creation as opposed to assistance for operating expenses and other areas. But the bottom line is those are the kinds of issues that Democrats and Republicans here in the Senate can take on in a bipartisan way. What we know is we have something that is working, that is making a difference in this critical infrastructure area, and that literally has 6 years worth of bipartisan history where Democrats and Republicans have come together on an issue that is extraordinarily important to our Nation. If we keep working together on good ideas such as Build America Bonds, by the time the current economic storm passes our country's infrastructure will be finally ready to support a strong, healthy economy that lies ahead for our Nation. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for up to 20 minutes.

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

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce new Wilderness legislation to protect two of Oregon's natural treasures. But, this bill will do even more than that. It will also help Oregon's economy, because visitors from all over the world come to our State to experience first-hand the unique scenic beauty of place like the lands preserved by this bill. The legislation I introduce today with my colleague Senator Merkley-- the Cathedral Rock and Horse Heaven Wilderness Act of 2010--will consolidate what is currently a splintered ownership of land in this area and protect 16,477 acres of new Wilderness along the Lower John Day River. The fractured land ownership in this area makes it difficult for visitors to fully appreciate these areas when they hike, fish or hunt there because of the scattered and misunderstood lines of private and public ownership. This bill will solve that problem and make these lands more inviting to visitors while giving the landowners more contiguous property to call home. The area in question is stunning. The Cathedral Rock and Horse Heaven Wilderness proposals encompass dramatic basalt cliffs and rolling hills of juniper, sagebrush and native grasses. These new areas build on the desert Spring Basin Wilderness that was established last year as a result of legislation I introduced, and are located directly across the John Day River from Spring Basin. With 500 miles of undammed waters, the John Day River is the second- longest free-flowing river in the continental U.S. and is a place that is cherished by Oregonians. The Lower John Day Wild and Scenic River offers world-class opportunities for outdoor recreation as well as crucial wildlife habitat for elk, mule deer, bighorn sheep and native fish such as salmon and steelhead trout. Through land consolidation between public and private landowners, this bill will allow for better management and easier public access for this important natural treasure. With the current fragmentation of public and private land ownership in the area, river campsites are limited. Many federal lands among them can't be reached by the hikers, campers and other outdoors recreationists who could most appreciate them. With the equal-value land exchanges included in this bill, public lands would be consolidated into two new Wilderness areas. This would enhance public safety, improve land management, and increase public access and recreational opportunities. This solution will create an incredible, new heritage for public lands recreationists who are an important factor in keeping Oregon's economy healthy and thriving. Rafters of the John Day River can attest to the need for more campsites and public access to the Cathedral Rock area. Backcountry hunters will be able to scan the hillsides for elk, deer and game-birds without having to worry about accidentally trespassing on someone's private land. Anglers will be able to access nearly 5 miles of the John Day River that today are only reachable from privately owned lands. Likewise, such a solution ensures that local landowners can manage their lands effectively without running across unwitting trespassers. One good example of the value of these land swaps is Young Life's Washington Family Ranch. This Ranch is home to a Christian youth camp that welcomes over 20,000 kids to the lower John Day area each year. This bill sets out private and public land boundaries that can clearly be seen on the ground and create a safer area for campers on the Ranch; this serves the children who visit the area well and ensures the continued viability of the Ranch, which, in turn, provides big economic dividends to the local community. The Cathedral Rock and Horse Heaven Wilderness proposal is described as ``win-win-win'' by many stakeholders--nearly five miles of new river access for the public and 18,000 acres of protected wild land for outdoor enthusiasts; better management for private landowners and public agencies; and important habitat protections for sensitive and endangered species. This proposal is an example of the positive solutions that can result when varied, bipartisan interests in a community come together to craft solutions that will work for everyone. All three of the counties involved in this legislation, Wheeler, Wasco and Jefferson, have endorsed this proposal as well as a number of user and recreation groups. I especially want to thank the Oregon Natural Desert Association, Young Life and Forrest Reinhardt, and Matt Smith for their role in developing this collaborative solution that will benefit all Oregonians. Oregon's wildlands play an increasingly important role in the economic development of our State, especially in traditionally rural areas east of the Cascades. Visitors come from thousands of miles away to hike, fish, raft and hunt in Oregon's desert Wilderness. Beyond tourism, the rich quality of life and the diverse natural amenities that we enjoy as Oregonians are key to attracting new businesses to Oregon. The Cathedral Rock and Horse Heaven Wilderness areas will help make sure that this rural area will enjoy the benefits that permanently connecting these disparate pieces of natural landscape will bring for generations to come. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce new Wilderness legislation to protect two of Oregon's natural treasures. But, this bill will do even more than that. It will also help Oregon's economy, because visitors from all over the world come to our State to experience first-hand the unique scenic beauty of place like the lands preserved by this bill. The legislation I introduce today with my colleague Senator Merkley-- the Cathedral Rock and Horse Heaven Wilderness Act of 2010--will consolidate what is currently a splintered ownership of land in this area and protect 16,477 acres of new Wilderness along the Lower John Day River. The fractured land ownership in this area makes it difficult for visitors to fully appreciate these areas when they hike, fish or hunt there because of the scattered and misunderstood lines of private and public ownership. This bill will solve that problem and make these lands more inviting to visitors while giving the landowners more contiguous property to call home. The area in question is stunning. The Cathedral Rock and Horse Heaven Wilderness proposals encompass dramatic basalt cliffs and rolling hills of juniper, sagebrush and native grasses. These new areas build on the desert Spring Basin Wilderness that was established last year as a result of legislation I introduced, and are located directly across the John Day River from Spring Basin. With 500 miles of undammed waters, the John Day River is the second- longest free-flowing river in the continental U.S. and is a place that is cherished by Oregonians. The Lower John Day Wild and Scenic River offers world-class opportunities for outdoor recreation as well as crucial wildlife habitat for elk, mule deer, bighorn sheep and native fish such as salmon and steelhead trout. Through land consolidation between public and private landowners, this bill will allow for better management and easier public access for this important natural treasure. With the current fragmentation of public and private land ownership in the area, river campsites are limited. Many federal lands among them can't be reached by the hikers, campers and other outdoors recreationists who could most appreciate them. With the equal-value land exchanges included in this bill, public lands would be consolidated into two new Wilderness areas. This would enhance public safety, improve land management, and increase public access and recreational opportunities. This solution will create an incredible, new heritage for public lands recreationists who are an important factor in keeping Oregon's economy healthy and thriving. Rafters of the John Day River can attest to the need for more campsites and public access to the Cathedral Rock area. Backcountry hunters will be able to scan the hillsides for elk, deer and game-birds without having to worry about accidentally trespassing on someone's private land. Anglers will be able to access nearly 5 miles of the John Day River that today are only reachable from privately owned lands. Likewise, such a solution ensures that local landowners can manage their lands effectively without running across unwitting trespassers. One good example of the value of these land swaps is Young Life's Washington Family Ranch. This Ranch is home to a Christian youth camp that welcomes over 20,000 kids to the lower John Day area each year. This bill sets out private and public land boundaries that can clearly be seen on the ground and create a safer area for campers on the Ranch; this serves the children who visit the area well and ensures the continued viability of the Ranch, which, in turn, provides big economic dividends to the local community. The Cathedral Rock and Horse Heaven Wilderness proposal is described as ``win-win-win'' by many stakeholders--nearly five miles of new river access for the public and 18,000 acres of protected wild land for outdoor enthusiasts; better management for private landowners and public agencies; and important habitat protections for sensitive and endangered species. This proposal is an example of the positive solutions that can result when varied, bipartisan interests in a community come together to craft solutions that will work for everyone. All three of the counties involved in this legislation, Wheeler, Wasco and Jefferson, have endorsed this proposal as well as a number of user and recreation groups. I especially want to thank the Oregon Natural Desert Association, Young Life and Forrest Reinhardt, and Matt Smith for their role in developing this collaborative solution that will benefit all Oregonians. Oregon's wildlands play an increasingly important role in the economic development of our State, especially in traditionally rural areas east of the Cascades. Visitors come from thousands of miles away to hike, fish, raft and hunt in Oregon's desert Wilderness. Beyond tourism, the rich quality of life and the diverse natural amenities that we enjoy as Oregonians are key to attracting new businesses to Oregon. The Cathedral Rock and Horse Heaven Wilderness areas will help make sure that this rural area will enjoy the benefits that permanently connecting these disparate pieces of natural landscape will bring for generations to come. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I honor Fred Rosenbaum, a brigadier general, businessman, public servant, philanthropist, Holocaust survivor and one of Oregon's greatest residents. I have known few others who matched Fred's courage and dedication to improving the lives of every American. Although cancer may have taken Fred from this world, nothing can take away the remarkable legacy he left to Oregon and the Nation as a whole. From his childhood as a Jew in Nazi Germany, Fred Rosenbaum saw the worst of humanity. Growing up in Vienna, Austria, Fred experienced the anti-Semitic riots of Kristallnacht first-hand. At age 12, shortly after Kristallnacht, school officials attempted to round up Fred and his Jewish classmates in a school basement, for eventual capture by the Nazi SS. Fred narrowly escaped them by crawling out a window and eventually finding his way to England. From England, Fred helped his parents escape from Austria. Fred and his family eventually immigrated to Portland, OR, to start a new life. Within just a few years, Fred began serving his new country. At age 16, Fred lied about his age and joined the Army, serving in the Philippines. In a sense, Fred experienced both fronts of the Second World War. Fred's service to his country extended for long after the conclusion of the war. After Fred returned home, he joined the Oregon National Guard and, by his retirement in 1986, earned the rank of brigadier general. At the same time, Fred built up a successful insurance business and employed his success for the public good. He chaired Portland's Housing Authority for 13 years, served as president of the Oregon Museum of Science and Industry, served on the board of trustees of Reed College, and became an associate national commissioner of the Anti-Defamation League. Service to others was an essential part of Fred's life, and we are all richer for it. However, if the name ``Rosenbaum'' lives on in Oregon for one reason, it is his work improving the lives of children. Fred drew upon his experience both as an officer in the Oregon National Guard and as a chairman of the Housing Authority of Portland to create a summer camp for at-risk youth. He founded the camp 40 years ago, and the camp continues to operate to this day, buoyed by Fred's tireless dedication to its fundraising and survival. The camp, located at the National Guard's Camp Rilea and now called ``Camp Rosenbaum'' in Fred's honor, provides pre-teens who live in public housing with an opportunity to fill their days with sports, the arts, and computer skills, while counselors and the Portland Police Bureau educate the children on the dangers of gangs and drugs. For many of the young and impoverished campers, it gives them their first chance to see the Pacific Ocean, and that moment always excites the kids. For the first time in their lives, they see a limitless horizon and Camp Rosenbaum helps them see that their potential is just as limitless. Even though Fred has passed away, Camp Rosenbaum will continue to educate and engage at-risk youth. He would ask for nothing more. Fred lived a life of service that immeasurably benefited both America and Oregon, and his legacy will live on for long after his passing. Not satisfied to just improve his own life, Fred dedicated himself to giving every child an opportunity to achieve their dreams. His life is an inspiration to refugees everywhere, and a demonstration of the promise our country offers to those in even the direst of straits. Oregon and America have lost a humble hero who achieved greatness by helping others. Living up to his example of kindness and caring is a challenge he left to us all. Every American should rise to that challenge and give back to their communities and our country as much as Fred did. It would be a fitting tribute to an extraordinary man and a great American.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join today with my colleague from Texas, Senator Cornyn, to introduce the Trafficking Deterrence and Victims Support Act of 2009. This bill addresses a serious problem that is modern day slavery, pure and simple--human sex trafficking. You could almost call it a war, where all too often, children are the casualties. The statistics on minors involved in sex trafficking are shocking. Experts estimate that over 100,000 children in the U.S. are at risk for prostitution. The average age of entry into prostitution is 12. The children at greatest risk of becoming involved in sex trafficking are what they call ``repeat runaways''--kids who have run away over and over again. They need help right away if they are going to avoid being caught by pimps. One third of run-away children are lured into prostitution within 48 hours of leaving home and 75 percent of minors caught in this web of prostitution have a pimp. This problem is on the rise because criminal gang members are increasingly turning to pimping. Gang members have discovered that they are less likely to get prosecuted for trafficking a person than trafficking drugs. While drugs can only be sold once, a pimp can sell a person over and over. It is just as lucrative. A pimp can make $200,000 a year on one trafficking victim. This situation is horrifying and totally unacceptable. The bill I am introducing today will bring a smart strategy that will give some teeth to the efforts law enforcement across the country have made to combat sex trafficking. It will give them additional resources they need to lock up pimps and sex traffickers. It will also help victims break away from their abusers and get the treatment and services they need to take their lives back. Let us be absolutely clear about this--the pimps who prey upon vulnerable young people are criminals, and they should be put behind bars. The young women, girls, and sometimes boys who are trafficked are not criminals--they are victims of crime. They don't need to be prosecuted. They need all the help they can get to escape the clutches of pimps. Unfortunately, until now, the government has been a step behind. Right now, it is very difficult for law enforcement officers and prosecutors to build criminal cases and crack down on pimps. The Trafficking Deterrence and Victims Support Act would change that. Here is how it would work: The bill would establish a pilot project of 6 block grants in locations in different regions of the country with significant sex trafficking activity. The block grants would be awarded by the Department of Justice to State or local government applicants that have developed a workable, comprehensive plan to combat sex trafficking. The grants would require a comprehensive, multi- disciplinary approach to addressing trafficking problems. Applicants for the grants would have to demonstrate they can work together with local, State, and Federal law enforcement agencies, prosecutors, and social service providers to achieve the goals the bill would set out for them. Government agencies that get the grants would be required to create shelters where trafficking victims would be safe from their pimps, and where they could start getting treatment for the trauma they have suffered. The shelters would provide counseling, legal services, and mental and physical health services, including treatment for substance abuse, sexual abuse, and trauma-informed care. The shelters would also provide food, clothing, and other necessities, as well as education and training to help victims get their lives on track. It is going to take this kind of comprehensive plan to finally turn the tables on pimps who, right now, just wait for their victims to be released from jail so they can put them back out on the streets to make money for them. Once those girls are out, they don't come back to testify against their pimps--they're just gone. This bill fixes that problem by giving the young victims a safe haven. It is only by addressing the needs of these victims that law enforcement officers will be able to work with them to build criminal cases against their pimps. The block grants will also provide for specialized training for law enforcement officers and prosecutors to help them learn how to handle trafficking victims and build trafficking cases. This bill would also strengthen reporting requirements for runaway or missing children, and authorize funding to the FBI to enhance the National Crime Information Center, NCIC, database, which is where missing child reports are filed. This would give law enforcement officers better information on the children at greatest risk of being lured in to sex trafficking by being able to show a tally of how many times a child has run away, and can flag them as ``repeat runaways'' who are at high risk of being lured into prostitution. Sex trafficking is a complex issue that requires the comprehensive, wrap-around approach that this bill would deliver. As daunting as this problem is, there are bright examples of how to address the challenge, such as the achievements of Sergeant Byron Fassett of the Dallas Police Department. Just listening to Sergeant Fassett, who spoke at a recent congressional briefing that I hosted, is an education in how to do this right. The lessons he has learned in over 20 years of combating sex trafficking are a primer for how to get victims out of the clutches of pimps and build cases to put pimps away. Sergeant Fassett is not the only officer out there who's attacking this challenge the right way. In my home town of Portland, the officers on the human trafficking task force are doing excellent work. But right now, they simply don't have the resources to crack this problem. The Trafficking Deterrence and Victims Support Act would deliver the training and resources they need. I want to also thank the many individuals and organizations who attended the briefing and participated in efforts to craft this legislation. I particularly want to acknowledge the Polaris Project and the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, for their instrumental roles in this effort. I look forward to working with Senator Cornyn and other colleagues to move this important legislation forward. There are children out on the streets tonight who shouldn't have to wait for the help this bill can give. Let us end this appalling war on those kids. Let us give them the help they need by passing this piece of legislation with all the speed possible. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join today with my colleague from Texas, Senator Cornyn, to introduce the Trafficking Deterrence and Victims Support Act of 2009. This bill addresses a serious problem that is modern day slavery, pure and simple--human sex trafficking. You could almost call it a war, where all too often, children are the casualties. The statistics on minors involved in sex trafficking are shocking. Experts estimate that over 100,000 children in the U.S. are at risk for prostitution. The average age of entry into prostitution is 12. The children at greatest risk of becoming involved in sex trafficking are what they call ``repeat runaways''--kids who have run away over and over again. They need help right away if they are going to avoid being caught by pimps. One third of run-away children are lured into prostitution within 48 hours of leaving home and 75 percent of minors caught in this web of prostitution have a pimp. This problem is on the rise because criminal gang members are increasingly turning to pimping. Gang members have discovered that they are less likely to get prosecuted for trafficking a person than trafficking drugs. While drugs can only be sold once, a pimp can sell a person over and over. It is just as lucrative. A pimp can make $200,000 a year on one trafficking victim. This situation is horrifying and totally unacceptable. The bill I am introducing today will bring a smart strategy that will give some teeth to the efforts law enforcement across the country have made to combat sex trafficking. It will give them additional resources they need to lock up pimps and sex traffickers. It will also help victims break away from their abusers and get the treatment and services they need to take their lives back. Let us be absolutely clear about this--the pimps who prey upon vulnerable young people are criminals, and they should be put behind bars. The young women, girls, and sometimes boys who are trafficked are not criminals--they are victims of crime. They don't need to be prosecuted. They need all the help they can get to escape the clutches of pimps. Unfortunately, until now, the government has been a step behind. Right now, it is very difficult for law enforcement officers and prosecutors to build criminal cases and crack down on pimps. The Trafficking Deterrence and Victims Support Act would change that. Here is how it would work: The bill would establish a pilot project of 6 block grants in locations in different regions of the country with significant sex trafficking activity. The block grants would be awarded by the Department of Justice to State or local government applicants that have developed a workable, comprehensive plan to combat sex trafficking. The grants would require a comprehensive, multi- disciplinary approach to addressing trafficking problems. Applicants for the grants would have to demonstrate they can work together with local, State, and Federal law enforcement agencies, prosecutors, and social service providers to achieve the goals the bill would set out for them. Government agencies that get the grants would be required to create shelters where trafficking victims would be safe from their pimps, and where they could start getting treatment for the trauma they have suffered. The shelters would provide counseling, legal services, and mental and physical health services, including treatment for substance abuse, sexual abuse, and trauma-informed care. The shelters would also provide food, clothing, and other necessities, as well as education and training to help victims get their lives on track. It is going to take this kind of comprehensive plan to finally turn the tables on pimps who, right now, just wait for their victims to be released from jail so they can put them back out on the streets to make money for them. Once those girls are out, they don't come back to testify against their pimps--they're just gone. This bill fixes that problem by giving the young victims a safe haven. It is only by addressing the needs of these victims that law enforcement officers will be able to work with them to build criminal cases against their pimps. The block grants will also provide for specialized training for law enforcement officers and prosecutors to help them learn how to handle trafficking victims and build trafficking cases. This bill would also strengthen reporting requirements for runaway or missing children, and authorize funding to the FBI to enhance the National Crime Information Center, NCIC, database, which is where missing child reports are filed. This would give law enforcement officers better information on the children at greatest risk of being lured in to sex trafficking by being able to show a tally of how many times a child has run away, and can flag them as ``repeat runaways'' who are at high risk of being lured into prostitution. Sex trafficking is a complex issue that requires the comprehensive, wrap-around approach that this bill would deliver. As daunting as this problem is, there are bright examples of how to address the challenge, such as the achievements of Sergeant Byron Fassett of the Dallas Police Department. Just listening to Sergeant Fassett, who spoke at a recent congressional briefing that I hosted, is an education in how to do this right. The lessons he has learned in over 20 years of combating sex trafficking are a primer for how to get victims out of the clutches of pimps and build cases to put pimps away. Sergeant Fassett is not the only officer out there who's attacking this challenge the right way. In my home town of Portland, the officers on the human trafficking task force are doing excellent work. But right now, they simply don't have the resources to crack this problem. The Trafficking Deterrence and Victims Support Act would deliver the training and resources they need. I want to also thank the many individuals and organizations who attended the briefing and participated in efforts to craft this legislation. I particularly want to acknowledge the Polaris Project and the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, for their instrumental roles in this effort. I look forward to working with Senator Cornyn and other colleagues to move this important legislation forward. There are children out on the streets tonight who shouldn't have to wait for the help this bill can give. Let us end this appalling war on those kids. Let us give them the help they need by passing this piece of legislation with all the speed possible. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I thank you, and I thank the chair for his courtesy as well. At this time of the year, millions of Americans are out in the stores doing their holiday shopping. That is because we Americans enjoy our free markets and our free enterprise system. Whether it is for a holiday or we are shopping for a car or food or a house, we Americans believe we ought to have quality choices in our marketplace, and Americans, our people, ought to be rewarded when they shop wisely. The American economy works this way for just about everything except health care. Today, American health care is mostly a competition-free zone. Insurance companies enjoy extraordinary privileges as monopolies. Insurers are exempt from the antitrust laws, and in scores of American towns, our people can only get their health care under the heel of just one health insurance company. Today's health insurance market is essentially dysfunctional, and for most Americans, they have no way to hold the insurance companies accountable. It has been that way since the middle of the last century, since the days of wage and price controls. For literally 60-plus years, American consumers have not been in the position to be able to hold the insurance companies accountable and to get the value for their dollar that they get in every other part of our economy. Changing this broken health care marketplace is the heart of real health reform. The legislation we will vote on tonight--and, I might add, the chairman of the Finance Committee is on the floor, and this essentially began with his white paper when we started working on it in the Finance Committee--the legislation we are going to vote on tonight, in my view, starts the long march to empowering consumers, to turning the tables on the insurance lobby, and to getting more value for our health care dollar. This can be done through a part of the health reform debate that got some discussion in the Finance Committee and then, because people liked it and didn't know much about it, has since essentially gotten lost in the discussion; that is, the health insurance exchanges. For folks listening at home today, an exchange is going to be like a farmers market. Various types of health plans are going to be marketed through the exchange, and for the first time--this was an area in which Chairman Baucus and I had a great interest in the committee--it is going to be possible for folks to make apples-to-apples comparisons of these various health plans. There are requirements in the bill that keep the low-quality products out of the exchange. Chairman Baucus and I got interested in the need for consumer protection particularly early on in programs, back in the days after Medicare got established when seniors were buying 15 or so private policies to supplement their Medicare and most of them weren't worth the paper they were written on. So with these exchanges as they are designed, that is not going to happen. People are going to get value for their dollar on day one. There are also some important consumer protection requirements, and I particularly wish to commend the Presiding Officer of the Senate, whose work I have been following. These consumer protection requirements will ensure that now when a consumer pays a dollar in a premium, they are going to get a lot more back in benefits for their dollar. This protection is called a loss ratio. People are going to hear a lot about that concept. It is new, but it essentially means the insurance companies can't walk off with their premium dollar, use it on administrative expenses, use it on salaries, but will instead return it to the public and the consumer in the form of benefits and premiums. I commend the Presiding Officer, the Senator from Minnesota, for ensuring this was all put in place. In my view, these ideas ought to appeal to both Democrats and Republicans--these market-oriented consumer protection principles--simply because they are just common sense. So should section 10108 of Senator Reid's managers' amendment on which the majority leader, Chairman Baucus, and I worked very closely. It is entitled ``Free Choice Vouchers.'' This section creates something that has never existed before: a concrete way for middle-income Americans who cannot afford their health care to actually push back against the insurance lobby and force insurance companies to compete for the business of covering those middle-class folks in the insurance exchanges. Unlike today, where if a hard-working, middle-class American can't afford just the one health insurance policy available to him and, thus, is out of luck, with this new provision, there will be a different health care marketplace, with free enterprise choices that can actually drive down costs for the middle class while ensuring those choices are of good quality. So the big hurdle, it seems to me, in setting up a new health care marketplace, which began with Chairman Baucus's white paper in the Senate Finance Committee, is getting these exchanges and getting these vouchers in place. We are going to be able to build on it. In my view, I think we will have additional opportunities to build on these ideas before the legislation goes to the President. For example, Senator Collins, our Republican colleague from Maine, Senator Bayh, and I have written bipartisan legislation that has been endorsed by the influential National Federation of Independent Business and we are working to include that proposal in this legislation. This bipartisan proposal would permit employers who are in the insurance exchange and who voluntarily choose to do so--let me emphasize that this is a matter of a voluntary choice by employers--if they choose to do so, they could give their workers a voucher so that those workers could shop for their coverage. What this means is for millions of employers and employees, the amendment would provide the opportunity to have a choice of American health care plans. These are unquestionably challenging days for American employers and workers trying to be as competitive as possible in tough global markets. For employers who want more ways to help their workers and the employers' bottom line and for workers who would like more take-home pay and lower health expenses, this bipartisan amendment can be a lifeline. We hope our colleagues of both parties will agree and join our effort, and this can be part of the legislation that ultimately will go to the President. Let me close with this. My great hope is that long after 24/7 cable TV has moved on to other topics, Democrats and Republicans here in the Senate can figure out a new strategy for working together, a bipartisan strategy that will let us, together, tap the full potential of real health care reform. That potential is for holding down costs, getting more value for our health care dollar, and, finally, achieving quality, affordable health coverage for all Americans. I offer this thought because I have long felt both parties have valid views on this topic. I believe our party is absolutely right in saying you cannot fix American health care unless all Americans get good- quality, affordable coverage. If you don't do that, too often uninsured folks will shift their bills to insured folks, there won't be enough prevention, and you won't be in a position to get the most value for the health care dollar. I continue to believe our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have valid points as well. They make valid points about the role of marketplace forces, the role of competition, the role of choice. There has to be a way in the days ahead--one of the things that has pleased me is Chairman Baucus has said we are going to have a lot of oversight hearings and a lot of work in the days ahead to actually implement this. None of us think we can create a new health care marketplace where there hasn't been one for 70 years in a matter of minutes. So I am very pleased Chairman Baucus has indicated we will be doing a lot of the painstaking oversight work in the days ahead to actually implement this transformation in American health care, and I think the chairman knows I will be his partner in those efforts to get this implemented. So after a year of tough financial hardships, let's find a way to bring to this Senate floor bipartisanship, common sense, and the good will that is public service at its best. I close by saying that I look forward to working with the chairman of the Finance Committee, who I know shares these views as well. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce critical forest legislation for my home State of Oregon. For too many decades, Oregon has been at war with itself over the fate of one of our most abundant--and most threatened--resources, our 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. With each passing month, 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. With each passing month and each attempted timber sale and threatened lawsuit, the relationship between the environmental community and the timber industry has grown increasingly bitter. Each side in these disputes has thoroughly armed itself politically enough to survive, but never enough to succeed. The end result is that today, across Oregon's Federal forest landscape, we have around 9.5 million acres of choked, at-risk forest in desperate need of management, and millions of acres of old growth, species habitat, and watersheds face an uncertain future. Unless something fundamental changes, that number and that peril will grow, not shrink, in coming years. Today, good and decent people on both sides of these difficult issues have come together with me to craft legislation that will bring peace, jobs, and a healthier tomorrow to 8.3 million acres of Federal forest in eastern and central Oregon. Today, for the first time in memory, timber executives are standing shoulder-to-shoulder with leaders of the Oregon environmental community to take shared responsibility for saving our endangered forests. These folks have been a part of negotiations with my office for over 8 months, and have made difficult concessions in order to save our threatened Eastside forests. 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. The folks my office worked with to come to an agreement set aside their differences and found common ground that will prevent that from happening. The legislation that we are rolling out today, the Oregon Eastside Forests Restoration, Old Growth Protection and Jobs Act of 2009, will provide an immediate supply of logs in the short term to jump-start restoration efforts and keep our timber mills alive. Job One must be saving our remaining forest management infrastructure in central and eastern Oregon while preserving our old growth and watersheds. Over the long term--in 3 years from its passage to be precise--this legislation will also provide the long-term certainty required to restore each of the six Eastside national forests, protect our most sensitive environmental assets, and restore countless jobs to rural communities. I want to make clear that the road ahead is likely to see some challenges. Our coalition will be tested. But I have great faith that the decent people who helped to put this bill together will honor the components of this agreement and will fight to preserve its many elements as we move through the process. 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, we have entered a partnership that goes beyond the four corners of this legislation. Together, as a team, we will fight for the funding to put our people back to work and restore the health of our forests. Together, we have demonstrated something that I think my colleagues here in the Senate will appreciate: working together on a difficult issue is not only possible, it yields far greater results than working apart. Later today, and tomorrow, I will be sitting down with key members of the Obama administration and the timber industry so that the administration can better understand the peril and opportunity in Oregon's Eastside forests. This is a united front that has not been witnessed by a White House since the onset of the timber wars. It is my hope we will learn to work together, we will develop real trust, and that we will use these new experiences to tackle the difficult issues that await us on the west side of the Cascades. I also want to single out a few individuals who have endured thousands, of hours of difficult work and negotiations to reach this point: John Shelk, president of Ochoco Lumber; Andy Kerr; the American Forest Resource Council, represented by Heath Heikkila and Tom Partin, who spearheaded negotiations. I also want to recognize others that joined me earlier today to rollout this legislation Tim Lillebo with Oregon Wild; Tom Insko with Boise Cascade; Mary Scurlock, with Pacific Rivers Council; Randi Spivak, with the National Center for Conservation Science and Policy; Ben Bendick with the Nature Conservancy; and Bob Irvin with Defenders of Wildlife. I also want to recognize back in the State, their colleagues that could not join me earlier today; Rick Brown with Defenders of Wildlife, Joseph Vaile of Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands Center, Steve Pedry with Oregon Wild, and Michael Powelson with the Nature Conservancy, as well as the other members and mill owners of AFRC. I want to thank my staff, Michele Miranda, Mary Gautreaux, and Josh Kardon, who gave their nights and weekends to get us to this point. 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, I rise today to introduce critical forest legislation for my home State of Oregon. For too many decades, Oregon has been at war with itself over the fate of one of our most abundant--and most threatened--resources, our 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. With each passing month, 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. With each passing month and each attempted timber sale and threatened lawsuit, the relationship between the environmental community and the timber industry has grown increasingly bitter. Each side in these disputes has thoroughly armed itself politically enough to survive, but never enough to succeed. The end result is that today, across Oregon's Federal forest landscape, we have around 9.5 million acres of choked, at-risk forest in desperate need of management, and millions of acres of old growth, species habitat, and watersheds face an uncertain future. Unless something fundamental changes, that number and that peril will grow, not shrink, in coming years. Today, good and decent people on both sides of these difficult issues have come together with me to craft legislation that will bring peace, jobs, and a healthier tomorrow to 8.3 million acres of Federal forest in eastern and central Oregon. Today, for the first time in memory, timber executives are standing shoulder-to-shoulder with leaders of the Oregon environmental community to take shared responsibility for saving our endangered forests. These folks have been a part of negotiations with my office for over 8 months, and have made difficult concessions in order to save our threatened Eastside forests. 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. The folks my office worked with to come to an agreement set aside their differences and found common ground that will prevent that from happening. The legislation that we are rolling out today, the Oregon Eastside Forests Restoration, Old Growth Protection and Jobs Act of 2009, will provide an immediate supply of logs in the short term to jump-start restoration efforts and keep our timber mills alive. Job One must be saving our remaining forest management infrastructure in central and eastern Oregon while preserving our old growth and watersheds. Over the long term--in 3 years from its passage to be precise--this legislation will also provide the long-term certainty required to restore each of the six Eastside national forests, protect our most sensitive environmental assets, and restore countless jobs to rural communities. I want to make clear that the road ahead is likely to see some challenges. Our coalition will be tested. But I have great faith that the decent people who helped to put this bill together will honor the components of this agreement and will fight to preserve its many elements as we move through the process. 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, we have entered a partnership that goes beyond the four corners of this legislation. Together, as a team, we will fight for the funding to put our people back to work and restore the health of our forests. Together, we have demonstrated something that I think my colleagues here in the Senate will appreciate: working together on a difficult issue is not only possible, it yields far greater results than working apart. Later today, and tomorrow, I will be sitting down with key members of the Obama administration and the timber industry so that the administration can better understand the peril and opportunity in Oregon's Eastside forests. This is a united front that has not been witnessed by a White House since the onset of the timber wars. It is my hope we will learn to work together, we will develop real trust, and that we will use these new experiences to tackle the difficult issues that await us on the west side of the Cascades. I also want to single out a few individuals who have endured thousands, of hours of difficult work and negotiations to reach this point: John Shelk, president of Ochoco Lumber; Andy Kerr; the American Forest Resource Council, represented by Heath Heikkila and Tom Partin, who spearheaded negotiations. I also want to recognize others that joined me earlier today to rollout this legislation Tim Lillebo with Oregon Wild; Tom Insko with Boise Cascade; Mary Scurlock, with Pacific Rivers Council; Randi Spivak, with the National Center for Conservation Science and Policy; Ben Bendick with the Nature Conservancy; and Bob Irvin with Defenders of Wildlife. I also want to recognize back in the State, their colleagues that could not join me earlier today; Rick Brown with Defenders of Wildlife, Joseph Vaile of Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands Center, Steve Pedry with Oregon Wild, and Michael Powelson with the Nature Conservancy, as well as the other members and mill owners of AFRC. I want to thank my staff, Michele Miranda, Mary Gautreaux, and Josh Kardon, who gave their nights and weekends to get us to this point. 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. Madam President, to close, briefly, I thank my colleagues. I don't want to make this a bouquet-tossing contest, but to have Senator Bayh and Senator Collins--they are as good of partners as it can possibly get. At the end of the day, Americans are going to watch this bill, they are going to watch it next year during the open enrollment season when millions are signing up for their coverage, and they are going to be looking to see if we did everything possible to hold down their premiums. Holding down their premiums--there is a variety of ways to go about it, but there is no better tool than to bring the principles of the marketplace, the principles that are used in every other part of American life--choice and competition--for the challenge ahead. With the help of Senator Collins and Senator Bayh, we are going to prosecute that case. We are going to do it in a bipartisan way. I thank my colleagues. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I thank my colleague from Maine for her great statement. She summed it up so well. To close, I will turn to Senator Bayh, and if we have time, I will add a thought or two.

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, how much time do we have?

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I will make one last comment and then we will be happy to have our colleague from Maine join us in this bipartisan colloquy. As we go forward with this legislation, I hope we will do more to look at the exchanges, which are the new marketplace for American health care. We haven't had that kind of approach since decades ago when we had a discussion about a system that, for all practical purposes, tethered people to one choice that was a judgment by an employer and insurance company. I wish to make sure, in the days ahead, that as many people as possible can keep exactly what they have today. That is something the President feels strongly about. That is something every Member of the Senate feels strongly about. I also want employers and employees to be able to say they are going to have a broader range of choices than they do now. I think that can be done in a way that does not destabilize employer- based coverage. In fact, I believe it will strengthen employer-based coverage. I think that is one of the reasons the National Federation of Independent Business has endorsed our proposal. We have a lot of work to do. I think there is a lot of good faith among Senators on both sides to get this done. I have always felt that on issues such as this, when you are talking about one-sixth of the American economy, you ought to try to find as much common ground as you possibly can. The three of us have come together behind a new set of amendments that does find some bipartisan common ground, around principles the President has embraced--choice and competition. At this point, I yield whatever time she desires to our friend from Maine, who is a wonderful partner in this, along with Senator Bayh. Americans are looking for commonsense ideas above all else. That is what we have sought to do in this proposal. I yield to my friend from Maine.

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I wish to begin my part of this colloquy with Senator Bayh and Senator Collins by thanking my colleague from Indiana. I also thank my colleague from Maine because both senators have said from the very beginning of this discussion that the bottom line for millions of working families, for single moms, for folks who are walking on an economic tightrope across the country, they are going to see this issue through the prism of what it means for them in terms of their premiums and their costs. Over these many months, Senator Bayh and Senator Collins and I have been toiling to put together some bipartisan ideas. We have filed these ideas as a package of amendments, submitted them to the majority leader, Senator Reid, and the chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Baucus, and we just wanted to take a few minutes today to talk in particular about why it is so essential that there be a bipartisan effort put together for additional steps to contain costs. Senator Bayh is absolutely right in describing the Congressional Budget Office analysis. Certainly, many people were fearful the CBO report would come out and say that on day one after enactment premiums would rise into the stratosphere as a result of the legislation. Fortunately, that was not the case in the report for most people. We also believe there is a whole lot more that can be done. So we have said, Democrats and Republicans are going to try to prosecute that case. What it comes down to is ensuring that, in the text of this legislation, there is more choice and more competition. The reality is, ever since the 1940s, the days of the wage and price control decisions that have done so much to shape today's health care system, most Americans have not had real choice in the health care marketplace and have not been able to enjoy the fruits of a competitive system. Most Americans have little or no choice. Most Americans don't get a chance to benefit when they shop wisely. As Senator Bayh noted--and as Senator Collins and I have noted over the last few days--that is something we ought to change. It is certainly not a partisan idea. Senator Reid and Senator Baucus, to their credit, have agreed with me that there ought to be more choice for those folks who have what, in effect, are hardship exemptions under this legislation. There are people, for example, who spend more than 8 percent of their income on health who aren't eligible for subsidies, who have these hardship exemptions; and Senator Reid, Senator Baucus, and I have agreed they ought to be able to take any help they are getting from their employer in the form of a voucher and go into the marketplace. These people should be able to put into their pockets any savings that come about because they have shopped wisely. But as Senator Bayh has noted, we have an opportunity to go further. If an employer in the exchange decides, on a voluntary basis, that their workers should have a choice, under the proposal advanced by the Senator from Indiana, the Senator from Maine, and myself, they would be able to do it. It is the voluntary nature of our idea that Senator Bayh has outlined, an approach that gives more options to both employers and employees, that caused our proposal to win an endorsement from the National Federation of Independent Business. I ask unanimous consent at this time to have printed in the Record that letter from the National Federation of Independent Businesses.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object--and I have no intention of objecting--I would like to also propound a unanimous consent request that after the Senator from Arkansas has spoken and after the Senator from New Hampshire has spoken, Senator Collins, I, and Senator Bayh be recognized for up to 30 minutes for a colloquy.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, at the end of the day, Americans don't care if a health reform proposal originated with a Democrat or a Republican, what matters to them is that it works. That is why I am proud to join forces with Senator Collins to offer commonsense amendments that will hold down premium costs and make health care more affordable for American families and their employers. As I have long said, the best way to hold down health care costs and make insurance companies accountable is to put Americans in the driver's seat and empower them to pick the plan that best fits their needs. Along with Senator Collins, I am proposing as amendments to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act three amendments that will improve the Senate bill by doing more to hold down premium increases for all Americans while expanding health care choices for more Americans and their employers. Our amendments are as follows: First, we are offering an amendment to provide more choices for employers and workers. While the current Senate legislation will eventually make it possible for employers to insure their workforce in the new health insurance exchanges, the legislation does not contain a mechanism to make it possible for employers to offer their workers the ability to choose any plan offered in the exchange. This Wyden-Collins amendment would correct that by making it possible for employers--who want to offer their employees the full range of choices in the exchange--to do just that while increasing competition in the new marketplace. Under the amendment, any employer that sponsors a health plan would have the option to offer tax-free vouchers to its workers equal to the amount the employer contributes to its own health plan. Workers could then use that voucher to purchase the exchange plan that works best for them and their family. If a worker decides to purchase a less-expensive plan, the worker would keep the savings as added income just as workers wanting to purchase more generous plans in the exchange will be able to pay the additional cost out of pocket. Whatever employers pay for vouchers will remain tax deductible for employers and tax free for employees and while no employer will be required to offer vouchers under the new system, in order to encourage participation, employers who want to offer their employees tax-free vouchers will be given accelerated access to the new health insurance exchanges. Under the amendment, any employer offering its workers vouchers would have access to the exchange in 2015 rather than 2017, which is the schedule for employer access in the bill. Our second amendment offers more choices to individuals and families in the insurance exchanges. This amendment will make it possible for individuals who are not eligible for a subsidy to purchase a catastrophic plan, regardless of age. Catastrophic plans will typically have much lower premiums than other plans offered through the exchange but subscribers will pay for most of their health care expenses out of pocket up until they exceed their plan's catastrophic limit. Americans should have the choice to purchase more affordable coverage, if that is what works best for them. Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, individuals up to the age of 30 are eligible to purchase these plans. This Collins-Wyden amendment will extend that option to individuals--not receiving government subsidies-- over the age of 30. This amendment would give consumers more choice and help ensure that more people can purchase coverage that fits their needs and is affordable to them. The amendment includes aggressive disclosure requirements that will require catastrophic subscribers to certify that they understand the terms of the coverage and know that they are purchasing the lowest level of coverage available. Finally, we are sponsoring an amendment to help hold down premium increases for consumers. Starting in 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will impose an annual fee on insurance companies based on the number of premiums written each year. This Wyden-Collins amendment will modify that fee to create an incentive for insurers to hold down rates. So, for example, insurance companies that hold down premium increases will pay lower fees, while insurers who jack up their premiums will pay much higher fees. Starting in 2010 the fee will be varied by as much as 50 percent based on how aggressively insurers control costs which will give them a strong incentive to hold the line on overhead, executive salaries, provider payments, and inefficiency. As under the bill, the total amount of the annual fee will be $6.7 billion per year. I urge our colleagues on both sides of the aisle will support these bipartisan, commonsense amendments.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I wish to spend a few minutes this morning talking about Medicare Advantage and particularly to highlight the fact that I think it is important to support the language put together by the chairman of the Finance Committee on Medicare Advantage and to reject the amendment offered by our friend from Utah, Senator Hatch. I wish to begin my comments with respect to Medicare Advantage by pointing out that it is clear that not all Medicare Advantage is created equal. Some of Medicare Advantage is a model of efficiency, and some of it is pretty much a rip-off of both taxpayers and seniors. I would refer, as it relates to the abusive plans, to the very important hearings chaired by Senator Baucus in the Finance Committee. I recall on one occasion sitting next to our friend from Arkansas, Senator Lincoln. We had witnesses describe how Medicare Advantage was being sold door-to-door in her part of the country by individuals dressed up in scrubs as physicians and health care providers. In the discussion of how to handle it, we looked at various kinds of reforms to rein in abusive practices. I came to the conclusion that when you do something such as that, the CEOs ought to be put in jail. That is what is documented on the record as it relates to the hearings held in the Senate Finance Committee and why I come to the floor to make it clear that I think it is important to distinguish between the good-quality Medicare Advantage plans and those that have been living high on the hog through some of the overpayments we have documented on this floor. My State has the highest percentage of older people in Medicare Advantage in the country. I had an opportunity to work closely with Chairman Baucus in terms of addressing Medicare Advantage, and I think that with the chairman's leadership, it has been possible to show you can find savings in the Medicare Program without harming older people, without reducing their guaranteed benefits, their essential benefits, as we have learned, with Medicare Advantage. The way Chairman Baucus goes about doing that is by forcing the inefficient Medicare Advantage plans to follow the model of the efficient ones. The way we have been able to do that is essentially through a two-part strategy: first, encourage competitive bidding and, second, provide incentives for quality, which is done through the bonus payment provisions that are in the legislation. First, on competitive bidding, you have plan bids, and you use the plan bids to set Medicare Advantage benchmarks which would encourage the plans to compete more directly on the basis of price and quality rather than on the level of extra benefits offered to those who are enrolling. With the competitive bidding, plans compete to be the most efficient and hold down costs. I commend Chairman Baucus for making this a central part of the way Medicare Advantage would be handled. Certainly our part of the country has shown this as a path to get more value for the Medicare Advantage dollar in the days ahead. In addition, in the Finance Committee I offered an amendment with several colleagues that would boost the payments to those plans that, according to the government--and the government uses a system of stars, in effect, to reward quality--our amendment would boost the payments to those Medicare Advantage plans with four- and five-star quality ratings. So, in effect, with our legislation there are both carrots and sticks. Competitive bidding plus bonus payments offers both, so the plans compete to provide the best value for seniors. By encouraging the plans to be more efficient, it is possible to achieve significant savings for older people, help shore up the solvency of the Medicare trust fund, and meet the cost-saving goals of the legislation. One point that has been discussed by colleagues on the floor of the Senate is this matter of individuals being able to keep what they have. I have heard that is not the case with Medicare Advantage plans; that somehow, under the legislation that has been offered by the Finance Committee, older people would not be able to keep what they have, according to some on the floor. That is simply inaccurate. Seniors who have Medicare Advantage plans under the Baucus legislation will be able to keep those plans. They will be able to stay with what they have, keep their guaranteed, essential benefits, and through the language that has been authored now in the legislation before us, there will be lower costs for taxpayers. Last point. I have heard a lot of talk about grandma on the floor of the Senate. I spent the bulk of my professional life in effect working with grandma. I was the cofounder of the Oregon Gray Panthers and ran the legal aid program for older people in our home State for a number of years. I want it understood that I think with the Baucus legislation on Medicare Advantage, that proves it is possible to make savings in the Medicare Program without cutting essential benefits. Using commonsense principles of competitive bidding, No. 1, and incentives for quality, I think grandma is going to be just fine under our language for Medicare Advantage. Mr. President, with that, I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, the Federal tax code is in great need of an overhaul and today I am introducing legislation to fix one small piece of it. My legislation will help struggling homeowners who are seeing their money literally going out the window as their heating costs go through the roof. The current tax code gives homeowners a tax credit for installing energy efficiency improvements, which is all well and good, but it only allows labor costs to be included for improvements inside their homes. If the homeowner is installing a new energy efficient furnace, labor costs are included in the expenses eligible for the tax credit. But for improvements like installing energy efficient windows, or doors, or insulation, or energy efficient roofing materials--improvements where labor is a major part of the cost, the tax credit only covers the cost of the materials and not the labor to install them. If this seems counterintuitive and counterproductive, that's because it is. Tilting the tax code to favor some types of home improvements over others is not a sound foundation for tax policy or energy policy. This legislation, which Senators Stabenow and Gillibrand have joined with me to coponsor, will fix this problem by including labor costs for all eligible energy efficiency improvements whether to the heating system or to the roof Our legislation doesn't change the amount of the overall credit or the kinds of energy efficiency improvements that can be made. It just makes it clear that the credit applies equally to labor costs to install all of the qualifying residential energy efficiency improvements, not just some. This will create a level playing field for homeowners when they are trying to decide which improvements to make especially for more labor intensive projects like installing insulation or new energy efficient roofing. It will also make all of these building energy saving opportunities more affordable. Most importantly, it will help Americans actually save energy and it will create jobs for those workers manufacturing and installing new, energy efficiency products. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, the Federal tax code is in great need of an overhaul and today I am introducing legislation to fix one small piece of it. My legislation will help struggling homeowners who are seeing their money literally going out the window as their heating costs go through the roof. The current tax code gives homeowners a tax credit for installing energy efficiency improvements, which is all well and good, but it only allows labor costs to be included for improvements inside their homes. If the homeowner is installing a new energy efficient furnace, labor costs are included in the expenses eligible for the tax credit. But for improvements like installing energy efficient windows, or doors, or insulation, or energy efficient roofing materials--improvements where labor is a major part of the cost, the tax credit only covers the cost of the materials and not the labor to install them. If this seems counterintuitive and counterproductive, that's because it is. Tilting the tax code to favor some types of home improvements over others is not a sound foundation for tax policy or energy policy. This legislation, which Senators Stabenow and Gillibrand have joined with me to coponsor, will fix this problem by including labor costs for all eligible energy efficiency improvements whether to the heating system or to the roof Our legislation doesn't change the amount of the overall credit or the kinds of energy efficiency improvements that can be made. It just makes it clear that the credit applies equally to labor costs to install all of the qualifying residential energy efficiency improvements, not just some. This will create a level playing field for homeowners when they are trying to decide which improvements to make especially for more labor intensive projects like installing insulation or new energy efficient roofing. It will also make all of these building energy saving opportunities more affordable. Most importantly, it will help Americans actually save energy and it will create jobs for those workers manufacturing and installing new, energy efficiency products. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise to talk about a great success story that not a lot of people have heard about. It is the story of a program that's helping create jobs and solve a lot of problems at the same time. It is the story of Build America Bonds. These bonds came about from a piece of legislation I introduced last year as a way to shore up our Nation's crumbling infrastructure, and, at the same time, put people back to work. In my home State of Oregon, infrastructure projects have proven to be an economic engine. People get back to work building a bridge, for example, and all the businesses near the construction site get more activity from the people who need their services. Then, once the project is finished, private investment follows that public investment. That bridge makes it easier for folks to get to work or take their kids to school, and communities grow. Now, when I initially proposed Build America Bonds, I thought they would sell $10 billion worth, but the most recent report on the bonds has shown they are selling like hotcakes. Build America Bonds dollars are flowing into local communities, creating jobs and helping to strengthen America's infrastructure. To date more than $50 billion worth of these innovative bonds have funded hundreds of projects in 38 States: fixing our roads and bridges, rebuilding our schools, and upgrading our utilities. For example, in Oregon's Dayton School District they have already used Build America Bonds to employ up to 150 people building and remodeling classrooms. By using Build America Bonds, the school district saved an estimated $1.2 million in interest costs. The city of De Pere, WI, was able to use Build America Bonds and lower its financing cost by 2.3 percent, allowing it to move forward with plans to upgrade roads, sewers, and buildings. The city's finance director, Joseph G. Zegers, told Business Week magazine that without Build America Bonds, ``some projects might not be done,'' and ``There would be less employment.'' Recently, the CBO highlighted other benefits from Build America Bonds. In an October report, the CBO found that tax-credit bonds, like Build America Bonds, can be more cost-effective than tax-exempt bonds. The report also concluded that because these bonds are more attractive to investors they are more efficient at raising capital. Not only are these funds being raised efficiently, they are being put to work quickly. Due to Federal spending guidelines, all bond funds must be spent within 2 years of the bond being issued. This means that money is not only flowing into projects, it is being spent in the short term, funding projects and putting people back to work with little delay. Before these bonds started being issued, the market for normal municipal bonds was frozen. It was very hard to sell municipal bonds, but that didn't mean the need for financing infrastructure wasn't still there. Build America Bonds have changed that. These bonds provide the option of a tax credit to investors or Federal subsidy to issuers of 35 percent of the interest earned over the life of the bond. This has proven to be a strong incentive and opened up new markets for State and local governments, giving financiers a new and profitable opportunity to invest in America. Build America Bonds have also gained support from the private sector, including the Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers. While this program has given local governments a powerful new tool in fighting the recession, time is running out. These bonds can only be issued until the end of 2010 and I urge communities to take advantage of this landmark program. Although there is no limit on the number or amount of bonds that can be issued, the clock is ticking and the end of 2010 will be here before you know it. I am not surprised that Build America Bonds are reinventing the municipal bond market. They are a good deal for investors and our communities. They have freed up financing for badly needed infrastructure construction, and ensured long-term economic growth. I would also like to highlight the Recovery Zone Build America Bonds program. Recovery Zone Bonds are much like Build America Bonds but are designed to help communities most adversely affected by the recent recession. These highly targeted bonds offer an even more generous subsidy of 45 percent of the interest to investors. Treasury allocates these bonds based on employment declines in 2008. So, the harder an area is hit, the more Recovery Zone Bonds it can issue, creating jobs where they are needed most. In some cases, these bonds will make the difference between whether these projects come to fruition or not. In other cases, they will lower the cost of projects and allow the community to reinvest those savings in other projects. As with Build America Bonds, Recovery Zone Bonds will only be issued until the end of 2010. That is why I am encouraging communities facing high unemployment to take advantage of the billions of dollars available in Recovery Zone Bonds. I also encourage my colleagues in Congress to begin working now to continue the success of Build America Bonds. As Congress struggles to find funding for a new transportation bill, innovative approaches like Build America Bonds should be part of the solution. The Build America and Recovery Zone Bond programs are working. They are providing much needed jobs to folks in our communities while strengthening essential infrastructure. They have given investors a profitable opportunity to invest in America. They are giving our children better schools, building energy efficient power grids, providing cleaner water and better roads. In short, they work. Build America Bonds are examples of how Congress can innovate creative solutions to rebuild our country and our economy. I urge my colleagues and our constituents to use them.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, even though America has the best doctors and the best nurses, our Nation spends too much on health care for what it gets. Because the problem in American health care will not cure itself, I rise in support of this motion to proceed to beginning the debate about how to fix American health care. Before I lay out the many provisions in Majority Leader Reid's bill that constitute real reform, I wish to talk for a couple of minutes about how the Senate can come together, Democrats and Republicans, to fix American health care. I have had a chance to visit with almost every Member of the Senate in their office on this issue, to listen to them, and it is very clear to me that both Democrats and Republicans have valid points. I believe my party is absolutely right in saying you cannot fix American health care unless all Americans get good quality, affordable coverage. If you don't cover everybody with that kind of coverage, what happens is those who are uninsured shift their bills to the insured folks who are already getting shellacked, and there is an underemphasis on prevention. So my party is right that to fix this, we have to offer all Americans secure, quality, affordable coverage. I think colleagues on the other side of the aisle have valid points as well. They focus on the need for marketplace forces, for choice, for competition. I subscribe to each of these principles as well. I think many believe it is an absurd fantasy that before the Senate completes its work on this legislation, the Senate could actually come together, Democrats and Republicans. I simply don't share that view. Let me be clear: It is my intent when this bill gets to the floor to work very closely with Majority Leader Reid and with all of our colleagues to finally break through, to get beyond some of the polarization, the near brawling we have seen in townhall meetings where folks sit in opposite sections depending on their political points of view. That is not the American way to face big challenges. This certainly is such a challenge. I believe fixing the economy and fixing American health care are two sides of the same coin. We can't spend more than 16 percent of our gross product on health care, spot our foreign competition hundreds of millions of dollars a year, and have enough money left over to focus on education, transportation, and domestic needs. The reason so many Americans don't see their take-home pay go up is because health care gobbles up all the costs in sight. So this is certainly a big enough challenge that it demands that the Senate get beyond the fighting--near brawling--about this subject across the land. On the basis of the conversations I have had with colleagues, I continue to believe the Senate can break through and produce a bipartisan bill, working with Senator Reid, working with colleagues on both sides of the aisle. In terms of the real reforms that are in Senator Reid's bill, some of the most important have to do with the delivery system--the way American health care is essentially experienced across the land. The fact is that today's delivery system essentially rewards inefficiency. Payments are based on volume rather than quality. In my part of the country, we have plans like Kaiser and Group Health, and we have actually been in the forefront of trying to move away from a system that rewards inefficiency, rewards volume. What we have shown is that changing these incentives pays off. People can be healthier and America can do it for less money. Senator Reid's bill begins to move in the direction of what we have been doing in our part of the country for some time. His bill promotes what are called accountable care organizations. There are also changes in reimbursement. Probably folks on Main Street are not familiar with what is called ``bundling.'' In effect, instead of paying for each specific service, under bundling there is essentially one payment to reward trying to deliver care in an integrated fashion. We have been able to have included in the legislation incentives to care for folks at home. The majority leader included a version of the bill I introduced called the Independence at Home Act that is backed by many colleagues on the other side of the aisle, and many Democrats as well. When we think about the challenges of American health care going forward, we certainly ought to agree it makes sense to deliver more good quality, affordable care at home, rather than forcing the sickest Americans to spend a big chunk of their day fighting through traffic simply to get to a doctor's office, and we have the technologies, we have the trained physicians and nurse practitioners to offer these kinds of services at home. I highlight the fact that this is real reform, it is in Senator Reid's bill, and Republicans and Democrats alike are behind it. The majority leader makes a number of long overdue changes in the private health insurance market. In many respects, today the private health insurance system is simply inhumane. What we have is a system that rewards cherry picking; where the private insurance companies take only the healthy people and send the sick people over to government programs more fragile than they are. What we need is a very different system where the private insurance companies compete on the basis of price, benefit, and quality, and not who is the best at selecting out the good risks. Senator Reid's bill does away with the unconscionable practice of pre-existing condition exclusions and the practice of rescission where the insurance companies abruptly drop coverage for the sick. The bill also does away with charging a person more simply because they are sick, because they are a woman, or because they work in a high-risk job. These are very constructive insurance reforms. We are going to try to build on those as we go forward in the legislation. Colleagues should make no mistake about it: The insurance changes in Senator Reid's bill are very real reform. I wish to focus for a few minutes, though, on what I think is the great promise of this legislation for health care in the future. Since World War II, there has essentially been no market for American health care. Back in the days of wage and price controls, we didn't have a way to get good health care to Americans and we simply said we will put it on the backs of employers. They were patriotic citizens then, like there are patriotic citizens now, and they said, We will figure out how to do it. We are going to have to pass on the costs in the form of higher prices for goods and services. That probably made sense back then. We had people essentially work at a job for 20 or 25 years, and after their last day at work they got a gold watch and a dignified retirement. Today, there is a very different economy. The typical worker changes their job 11 times by the time she is 40. She needs a different set of health care choices. She needs the opportunity to be empowered to go into the marketplace to hold insurance companies accountable and to get more value for her health care dollar. The majority leader in his bill lays the foundation for this kind of system. He establishes a system of what are called health insurance exchanges. They are kind of like farmers markets for health insurance. Senator Reid has improved this so that these farmers markets, these exchanges, could only let in good-quality plans, and under Senator Reid's bill, it will be possible to more easily compare the plans in these exchanges. This is something I have been interested in for years, really going back to the days when I was co-director of the Oregon Gray Panthers, because I think it is simply bizarre that it is possible in other parts of American life--in a Costco store or any other big store--to compare products, look at alternatives, have a measure of uniformity, and not have that in American health care. What Senator Reid's bill does is set the foundation for a marketplace so that health care in 2009 will be dramatically different than it was, say, 60 years ago, in 1949, when I was born. I don't see anybody outside the Capitol driving a car from 1949, but much of American health care still resembles the middle of the last century. Senator Reid, through his legislation, lays the foundation for modernizing that. I would like to see more people in these new marketplaces, the exchanges, more quickly. Under the estimates we have been given, only about 10 percent of our population would be able to enjoy the fruits of real choice and real competition. Real choice and real competition in that marketplace is the path to holding premiums down. My goal in the years ahead is to allow every consumer--every consumer, for example, in New York and Oregon--to be able to deliver an ultimatum to their insurance company. That ultimatum should be: Treat me right or I am taking my business elsewhere. It is that simple. That is the way we do it in every other part of American life. By the way, that is the way it works for all of us here in the Senate. We belong to a real marketplace. We belong to a real exchange called the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. If a Member of the Senate doesn't like his health care coverage in November of 2009, come January of 2010, that Member of the Senate can take his business elsewhere, to another insurer that does a better job. I think that kind of marketplace--the marketplace every Member of the Senate now enjoys-- ought to be available to everybody else in the country. I think there ought to be public choices. I think there ought to be private choices. I think all Americans ought to be able to have access to all of those choices. We are not going to be able to have real insurance company accountability, real choice, and real competition unless we make the exchanges robust and get more people in. To illustrate the fact that the majority leader and other leaders, such as Chairman Baucus, are open to new ideas, just yesterday the majority leader and Chairman Baucus and I agreed on an approach that will allow more people to enjoy the marketplace, the fruits of a competitive system, more quickly, when they indicated yesterday they would support my legislation to expand access to the exchanges for those who otherwise would have forgone having health insurance under health reform. Let me emphasize that--letting folks get to the exchanges who otherwise would have no health insurance at all. We have been able to do it. According to the CBO, we will be able to add an additional million people, middle-class folks walking on an economic tightrope, at 10 percent or less of what it would cost to have those people get their coverage through Medicaid or through subsidies. It is my intent to work with the majority leader and Chairman Baucus closely to allow others to have a chance to be part of this kind of competitive system. I commend the majority leader and Chairman Baucus for their commitment to work with me, as this bill goes to the floor, to expand access to the marketplace. Let me close with one last point. I see my colleague from New Mexico in the Chamber, and he is a welcome addition to the Senate. A lot of Americans listening may wonder why the Senate is turning its attention to health care when there is so much economic hurt in our land. The fact is, fixing the economy and fixing American health care are literally two sides of the same coin. We have to rein in these costs. We have to rein in these costs for Americans to have more take- home pay, to be in a position to pay for essentials, and to allow our workers to compete in ferociously challenging markets around the world. It is time to move beyond the townhall brawls of this past summer and for the Senate to work with Senator Reid and all colleagues to break through and deal with this critical issue, the premier long-term challenge of our time for our economy, and do it in a bipartisan way. I urge my colleagues to vote for the motion to proceed. I yield the floor.