Ron Wyden

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. I believe 10 minutes would be plenty.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, these days the country's attention has rightly been focused on turning its financial fortunes around and getting people back to work. The President, his advisers, folks in the agencies, and in Congress have been working night and day to find the solutions that will help the nation climb out of the financial hole it is in. I would like to point out that there is one portion of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act that is doing just that, but it is not getting a lot of attention. It is a creative solution. It is putting jobs back in our economy. And, most importantly, it is working. The Build America Bonds portion of the Recovery Act has been a great success, allowing State and local governments to issue more than $9.5 billion worth of these innovative bonds. They have already begun shoring up our infrastructure and putting jobs back in communities where times are tough. That $9.5 billion of investment supports more than 3,000 jobs. Build America Bonds have been such a quiet success, so some of you might not be familiar with what they do. The provision that ended up in the Recovery Act is based on a bill that, first Senator Talent, and now Senator Thune and I have been working on for a number of years. As included in the economic recovery package, the Build America Bonds provision allows any State or local government that can issue tax exempt bonds to issue what are called Build America Bonds. These bonds can offer either a tax credit for investors or a Federal subsidy to issuers, of 35 percent of the interest earned over the life of the bond. The bonds can only be issued through the end of 2010, but during that time there is no limit on the number or amount of Build America Bonds that can be issued. One of the reasons I am talking to my colleagues today about them is that the clock is ticking on that deadline, and I want to make sure every Senator here knows how much Build America Bonds can benefit the folks back home. The end of 2010 will be here before you know it. As communities deal with the recession, they need new tools to finance essential construction projects. Build America Bonds has put a new tool in their toolbox. 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. Tax credit bonds, in the form of Build America Bonds, were designed to help thaw the bond markets. And it has worked. They are selling like hotcakes. Tax-exempt or tax-deferred investors, such as pension funds and IRAs, aren't usually interested in municipal bonds. But by providing the option of a direct payment instead of tax-exempt interest, Build America Bonds have opened up new markets for State and local governments. I am not surprised that Build America Bonds are proving to be very attractive to investors. They are a good deal for both the investors and our communities. They have freed up financing for badly needed infrastructure construction and created jobs and a foundation for long- term economic growth. So far, more than $9.5 billion worth of Build America Bonds have been issued, making it easier and cheaper for cash-strapped State and local governments to access capital and grow jobs. The State of California, the New Jersey Turnpike Authority, the University of Virginia, and the Milan Area School District in Michigan are just some of the issuers of Build America Bonds since the passage of ARRA. Build America Bonds have earned support from organizations across the country that understand how the urgent need is to shore up our infrastructure and create jobs: the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, the Chamber of Commerce, and the National Association of Manufacturers. I appreciate that support. We recently had another positive milestone in the story of Build America Bonds. The Treasury Department gave cities and counties around the country the authority to issue $10 billion worth of Recovery Zone Build America Bonds. Recovery Zone Bonds are like Build America Bonds. They provide a Federal tax credit to the buyer or a subsidy to the issuer, but with an even more generous subsidy of 45 percent of the interest. Only areas hurt by the weakened economy can issue these bonds. They are very targeted to the places they can do the most good. Treasury allocated them based on employment declines in 2008. So the harder an area has been hit, the more Recovery Zone Build America 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 the regular Build America Bonds, Recovery Zone bonds are only authorized under current law through the end of 2010. That is why I am encouraging State and local governments that are going to issue bonds to sit down and do the math so they can see if Build America Bonds will work for them. And if they do, I encourage those governments to take advantage of them while they are available. There is no time like the present to strengthen the Nation's infrastructure and our communities with the jobs folks back home need. 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. Recently, the Obama administration has proposed delaying the Transportation reauthorization bill for 18 months. If that were to happen, and I hope it doesn't, Build America Bonds could provide additional funding to bridge the gap between our Nation's transportation needs and current funding levels. Mr. President, I hope my colleagues in Congress will also look into the benefits of Build America Bonds and ensure these unsung financial tools will continue to work helping their constituents and their communities from coast to coast. They are effective. They give benefits to both those who issue them and those who buy them. And most of all, they solve the kinds of problems that affect the daily lives of every American. Build America Bonds are an example of the creative solutions people are looking for Congress to implement during these uncertain economic times. I urge my colleagues and your constituents to use them.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 1289, and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the concurrent resolution be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the concurrent resolution be printed in the Record, without intervening action or debate.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H. Con. Res. 131 at the desk and just received from the House.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. Presdient, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 88, S. 1107.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the concurrent resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc, and that any statements relating to the concurrent resolution be printed in the Record, without intervening action or debate.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H. Con. Res. 135 at the desk, just received from the House.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the U.S. Outdoor Act. no denying that this economy has got Americans worried. People are stressed, and with good reason. One thing that we see time and again during recessions is that people look to get their minds off the tough times for just a little while with low-cost, simple activities that the whole family can enjoy. Outdoor recreation fits that bill; it makes people healthier and happier too. But recreational performance outerwear--jackets and pants used for skiing and snowboarding, mountaineering, hunting, fishing, and dozens of other outdoor activities--are assessed some of the highest duty rates applied to any products imported into the U.S. These disproportionately high tariffs, let us call them what they are, taxes, were originally implemented to protect U.S. outerwear manufacturers from foreign competition. Instead, now these import taxes stifle innovation, add substantial costs for outdoor businesses, and ultimately raise the prices we all pay at the cash register. We can fix this, help these companies to better compete globally while investing in eco-friendly technology and jobs here in the U.S., and help consumers in these tough times so more people can get out and enjoy the great outdoors. So today, I am proud to introduce the U.S. Optimal Use of Trade to Develop Outerwear and Outdoor Recreation Act, or the U.S. Outdoor Act. This bill is the result of partnership between performance outerwear manufacturers and the domestic textile and apparel industry. In 2007, the U.S. International Trade Commission found that there was no commercially viable production of performance outerwear in the U.S.. This legislation reflects those findings, and makes a solid investment in U.S. jobs. It spurs outdoor recreation and its industry, which accounts for $730 billion dollars and 65 million jobs across the U.S., with 73,000 jobs in Oregon, and this bill can potentially create many more. This would also help lower costs for consumers, who pay $289 billion in outdoor retail sales and services across the country, with $4.6 billion in Oregon. The U.S. Outdoor Act eliminates the import duty for qualifying recreational performance outerwear, bringing duties that can be as high as 28 percent down to zero. It also establishes the Sustainable Textile and Apparel Research, STAR, fund, which invests in U.S. technologies and jobs that focus on sustainable, environmentally conscious manufacturing, helping textile and apparel companies work towards minimizing their energy and water use, reducing waste and their carbon footprint, and incorporating efficiencies that help them better compete globally. The U.S. Outdoor Act reduces the costs for U.S. companies and consumers, encourages Americans to take part in healthy and active lifestyles through outdoor recreation, spurs economic activity, invests in the U.S. textile industry, supports American jobs and competitiveness, and encourages sustainable business practices to benefit the environment so we all can continue to enjoy the beauty that is the great outdoors. I want to thank the Outdoor Industry Association, for their tireless work with my office, and with the U.S. ITC and other agencies in perfecting this bill. I also want to acknowledge and thank those in the U.S. textile and apparel industry who have partnered with the outdoor industry to develop a thoughtful and well balanced bill that supports American jobs and U.S. technologies. I thank my house colleague, Congressman Blumenauer, who had introduced an earlier version of this bill in the last Congress and is introducing companion legislation. Finally, thank you to my Senate colleagues, Senator Crapo, who is an original cosponsor of this bill, Senator Cantwell, Senator Enzi, and Senator Schumer.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the U.S. Outdoor Act. no denying that this economy has got Americans worried. People are stressed, and with good reason. One thing that we see time and again during recessions is that people look to get their minds off the tough times for just a little while with low-cost, simple activities that the whole family can enjoy. Outdoor recreation fits that bill; it makes people healthier and happier too. But recreational performance outerwear--jackets and pants used for skiing and snowboarding, mountaineering, hunting, fishing, and dozens of other outdoor activities--are assessed some of the highest duty rates applied to any products imported into the U.S. These disproportionately high tariffs, let us call them what they are, taxes, were originally implemented to protect U.S. outerwear manufacturers from foreign competition. Instead, now these import taxes stifle innovation, add substantial costs for outdoor businesses, and ultimately raise the prices we all pay at the cash register. We can fix this, help these companies to better compete globally while investing in eco-friendly technology and jobs here in the U.S., and help consumers in these tough times so more people can get out and enjoy the great outdoors. So today, I am proud to introduce the U.S. Optimal Use of Trade to Develop Outerwear and Outdoor Recreation Act, or the U.S. Outdoor Act. This bill is the result of partnership between performance outerwear manufacturers and the domestic textile and apparel industry. In 2007, the U.S. International Trade Commission found that there was no commercially viable production of performance outerwear in the U.S.. This legislation reflects those findings, and makes a solid investment in U.S. jobs. It spurs outdoor recreation and its industry, which accounts for $730 billion dollars and 65 million jobs across the U.S., with 73,000 jobs in Oregon, and this bill can potentially create many more. This would also help lower costs for consumers, who pay $289 billion in outdoor retail sales and services across the country, with $4.6 billion in Oregon. The U.S. Outdoor Act eliminates the import duty for qualifying recreational performance outerwear, bringing duties that can be as high as 28 percent down to zero. It also establishes the Sustainable Textile and Apparel Research, STAR, fund, which invests in U.S. technologies and jobs that focus on sustainable, environmentally conscious manufacturing, helping textile and apparel companies work towards minimizing their energy and water use, reducing waste and their carbon footprint, and incorporating efficiencies that help them better compete globally. The U.S. Outdoor Act reduces the costs for U.S. companies and consumers, encourages Americans to take part in healthy and active lifestyles through outdoor recreation, spurs economic activity, invests in the U.S. textile industry, supports American jobs and competitiveness, and encourages sustainable business practices to benefit the environment so we all can continue to enjoy the beauty that is the great outdoors. I want to thank the Outdoor Industry Association, for their tireless work with my office, and with the U.S. ITC and other agencies in perfecting this bill. I also want to acknowledge and thank those in the U.S. textile and apparel industry who have partnered with the outdoor industry to develop a thoughtful and well balanced bill that supports American jobs and U.S. technologies. I thank my house colleague, Congressman Blumenauer, who had introduced an earlier version of this bill in the last Congress and is introducing companion legislation. Finally, thank you to my Senate colleagues, Senator Crapo, who is an original cosponsor of this bill, Senator Cantwell, Senator Enzi, and Senator Schumer.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I have unanimous consent requests to make. Before I do that, I wish to say, again, how much I appreciate the Senator from Utah and his involvement and particularly his leadership on health care issues. When you look at the array of important legislation that has clearly improved American health care, Senator Hatch's name is all over that legislation. Think about landmark legislation for children. It could not have happened without Senator Hatch. He and I have written legislation together. One of the accomplishments of which I am most proud is that we found a bipartisan way to increase coverage for community health centers by lowering their malpractice costs. I think it was an example of the way Senator Hatch approaches that kind of legislation. He brought together advocates of low-income people, trial lawyers, community health centers. Everybody said you could not find common ground among those kinds of organizations, and with Senator Hatch's leadership we were able to do it. I am going to make a unanimous consent request, but I wish to tell the Senator from Utah I am convinced this year we are going to be able to pass health reform. One of the reasons we are going to be able to do it is because of both the good will and the expertise of the Senator from Utah. I am very much looking forward to working with him on that.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, as the Congress focuses on health care reform, I wanted to take a few minutes to discuss one approach that has been documented by the Congressional Budget Office as producing significant cost savings in American health care. That approach is free choice and rewards for selecting health care wisely. Today, 85 percent of American businesses that offer health care coverage offer no choices. That is not because they would not like to. Quite the contrary; they would very much like to offer additional private sector choices. But for example, if you are a small businessperson--and I know the distinguished Senator from Alaska identifies with this--and you go out into that broken private insurance market, with huge administrative costs very often approaching 30 percent, you can't offer choices. Without choices there can't be real competition and accountability in health care. As a result, costs go up and care for our workers and our employers and small businesses and others becomes less affordable. Some in America enjoy a better system, one where they have a full array of private sector health care choices. Everyone in this Chamber knows what that is all about because it is the system we have as Members of Congress. We get a menu--a menu of private health plan offerings. The plans that are offered to Members of Congress can't discriminate, for example, against someone with a preexisting illness. You go into a large group where you have a lot of bargaining power, which means you can hold down costs, and you don't face discrimination on the basis of age. That is particularly important because it looks as if under some of the approaches that are being discussed in the Congress there could be significant discrimination against older workers. I believe all Americans should have the opportunity to be part of a health care system where they have more choices, and they are in a position to benefit from the wise selection of those kinds of choices. I think that will lead to reduced costs, and I think it will lead to more affordable health care coverage. The legislation that is being developed in the Congress would not allow most people to have the free choice of insurance exchange plans. In fact, it wouldn't allow them to have free choice of health plans generally, whether they are in a private plan or a public plan. Without choice, there won't be competition to hold down costs. So I very much hope in the weeks ahead Democrats and Republicans alike will come to see what the Budget Office has documented, and that is free choice of an increased menu of private sector health care-- where the insurance companies can't cherry-pick, where they can't discriminate against someone with a preexisting illness, where people would go into a large group, and where you don't have older workers being discriminated against--will hold down skyrocketing health care costs and help keep quality health coverage affordable. I would hope Democrats and Republicans would see that kind of approach, with expanded choices, would help hold down health care costs and make health care more affordable for our people. The reason I have focused on this question of holding down costs, making coverage more affordable by expanding choices--free choice, as I call it--is in light of the discussion we have held this week in the Senate on the costs of health care reform. I note my friend from Utah, Senator Hatch, is here. He is someone who has, in my view, done so much good work on health care for children, for community health centers, for a variety of needs in our country. He and I participated in discussions, particularly in the Senate Finance Committee, about how to come up with additional money to expand coverage, particularly for the more than 45 million Americans who don't have coverage. The Finance Committee is going to continue to grapple with this issue, but I only wanted to talk about cost savings through free choice today because I believe that is what most Americans look at first. Most Americans feel very strongly that they want to get all our people covered. They know it is a disgrace that, in a country as rich and strong and good as ours, that close to 50 million people do not have coverage. But they are also very concerned about the idea that, when you are already spending $2.5 trillion annually on health care, before you go out and spend a trillion dollars or more to pay for expanding coverage, you better have a plan to save money through choice, through the kinds of approaches I have been talking about in order to be credible. It is not credible to go to the American people and say we need $1 trillion or more to expand coverage, expand coverage and pay this huge sum on top of the $2.5 trillion being spent today, unless you have an actual plan to hold down costs and generate savings. That is why I hope the Democrats and Republicans will look at how the Congressional Budget Office has documented that, through choice, you can generate significant cost savings and make health care more affordable. I am concerned that the point I have made this morning has gotten a bit lost as the focus this week has been on the question of paying this very large additional sum to finance coverage expansion. There is no question that at a time of soaring deficits, the Congress must pay attention to what it costs to pay for health reform. It would be fiscally irresponsible to pass health reform that is not paid for. But it would be equally irresponsible to pass a bill that is labeled health reform that fails to put a lid on the skyrocketing costs of our health care system. The two go hand in hand. So what will provide significant savings? All the experts agree that we need to change incentives and behavior to change how people buy and use their health care. First, show that you can generate cost savings for all Americans through increasing choice and rewarding those who make a wise selection of their coverage. That, in my view, ought to be built around what the Congressional Budget Office has documented, which is savings through an approach very much like what Members of Congress have. If you do that first, then you have the credibility to go back and say to the American people: Here are the choices in front of us for expanding coverage to the close to 50 million people who do not have it today. What I have tried to describe this morning is a way to keep faith with the small business owners who are across this country, from Coos Bay, OR, to Oyster Bay, Long Island. Let's keep faith with them by showing we are going to hold down costs and then also, in a bipartisan way, come together and grapple with the question Senator Hatch and I were discussing with our colleagues this week, which is how to best and most responsibly finance coverage for the close to 50 million Americans who do not have it. I believe we can do it. I believe the approach I have outlined this morning is one path to do it. I have never said, in the course of health reform debates, that it is my way or the highway. But I think we certainly ought to learn from the constructive analyses done by the Congressional Budget Office that show it is possible to get hard cost savings, not within a decade but within a matter of years, by expanding choices for our people and rewarding those who make a wise selection from that menu of choices. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

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 am introducing legislation that I hope will enable our national intelligence agencies to increase their employees' proficiency in critical foreign languages. I have been a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee for over eight years, and during that time I have sat in a number of briefings and hearings that addressed foreign language capabilities. While specific details regarding the intelligence community's capabilities are generally classified, it is no secret that there is still a great need for more analysts and agents trained in key foreign languages. Over the past few years there have been a number of new initiatives designed to address this problem from different angles, and even newer initiatives are being introduced this year. The legislation that I am introducing today, which I have drafted along with Senator Chambliss of Georgia, is not designed to replace any of those initiatives--rather, we think it will complement those other initiatives by filling a key gap. Let me explain this gap a little, so it will be clear what problem we are trying to fix. Most efforts to improve the language capabilities of various intelligence agencies focus on recruiting Americans who have a background in critical foreign languages--either from their education, or from their family. But this only attacks the problem from one angle. If you want the national security workforce to have the strongest language skills possible, you also need to improve language training for people who already work for the intelligence agencies. This means both teaching the basics of key languages to more people, and helping people who are already proficient improve their skills further. Unfortunately, language training is time-intensive, and this can mean that personnel are diverted from short-term priorities. Here is an example of how this problem might crop up in practice. Imagine that you are the supervisor of a group of 10 people somewhere in the intelligence community, working on counterterrorism issues, and that one of those employees decides he wants to go spend several months in intensive language training to improve his Arabic. This would be a good career move for that individual, and a good long-term investment for your agency. But for you, the supervisor, it means that you might be short-handed for several months while one of your employees is off getting language training. Since you have a fixed number of positions available for your office, it is difficult for you to replace someone while they are gone. This means that as the supervisor you actually have an incentive to resist letting that employee head off for language training, since it will leave your team less well-equipped to meet short-term priorities. I am not saying that all supervisors within the intelligence community are focused solely on short-term priorities, to the detriment of our long-term security interests. But I am saying that if we want our intelligence agencies to effectively balance short- and long-term priorities, we need to give them incentives that encourage them to do so, and not penalize people who try to balance short-term needs and long-term goals. Here is how the bipartisan legislation that Senator Chambliss and I are introducing today would attempt to address this problem. Our bill would give the Director of National Intelligence the authority to transfer additional positions to offices whose personnel are temporarily unavailable due to language training. The Director of National Intelligence is uniquely situated to evaluate which offices are most in need of these extra positions, and could transfer them to the places where they would do the most good. So, to return to my previous example, if you were the supervisor of a young counterterrorism analyst who wants to take 6 months to go learn Arabic, you could go ask the Director of National Intelligence to transfer an extra position to your office for that 6 month period. That way, you could bring someone else in on a temporary basis to do that analyst's work while they are gone for training. The analyst and the agency would get the long-term benefits of additional language training, and you, the supervisor, would not have to sacrifice in the short-term. Senator Chambliss and I do not claim that this legislation will revolutionize the intelligence community's language capabilities overnight. But it is our hope that it will make it easier than it is today for managers to balance short- and long-term priorities. If we can achieve that it will be good for our national intelligence workforce, and for our national security interests.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate segments of the Molalla River as Wild and Scenic. I am pleased to be introducing this legislation with my colleague from Oregon, Senator Merkley. This legislation has already been introduced by Representative Schrader in the House, who is a champion for protecting the river. The Molalla River Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 2009 will designate an approximately 15.1-mile segment of the Molalla River, and an approximately 6.2-mile segment of Table Rock Fork Molalla River as a recreational river under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. The Molalla River Wild and Scenic Rivers Act protects a popular Oregon destination that provides abundant recreational activities all of which take place among the abundant wildlife that call this area home. The scenic beauty of the Molalla River provides a backdrop for hiking, mountain biking, camping, and horseback riding, while the waters of the river are a popular destination for fishing, kayaking, and whitewater rafting enthusiasts. My bill would not only preserve this area as a recreation destination, but would also protect the river habitat of the Chinook salmon and Steelhead trout, along with the wildlife habitat surrounding the river, home to the northern spotted owl, the pileated woodpecker, golden and bald eagles, deer, elk, the pacific giant salamander, and many others. The Molalla River is not only an important habitat for wildlife and a popular northwest recreation destination, but it is also the source of clean drinking water for the towns of Molalla and Canby, Oregon. Protecting the approximately 21.3 miles of the Molalla River will provide the residents of these Oregon towns with the assurance that they will continue to receive clean drinking water, and will provide all the people of the Pacific Northwest and beyond the knowledge that this important natural resource will be preserved for continued enjoyment for years to come. I want to express my thanks to the Molalla River Alliance--a coalition of more than 45 organizations that recognize that this river is a jewel. Michael Moody, the President of this Alliance, made sure that irrigators, city councilors, the mayor, businesses and environmentalists all came together on this. I look forward to working with Senator Merkley, Representative Schrader, and the bill's supporters to advance this legislation to the President's desk. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, along with my friend, Senator Barrasso, I am introducing legislation to keep rural America from becoming a health care sacrifice zone. Our legislation, the Rural Health Clinic Patient Access and Improvement Act, will make it more financially attractive for doctors and other providers to treat patients in rural areas. Both Senator Barrasso and I have heard from the folks back home about how hard it is to get doctors and mid-level practitioners in rural areas. My constituents have had to travel hours to get treatment when they need it. This bill takes major strides to ensure access to health care by building on the successes of the rural health clinic program. When it comes to health care, rural residents should not have to accept second-class status. As the Senate takes up comprehensive healthcare reform, this Congress must not lose focus on the health needs of folks in rural areas. Too many Oregonians cannot get the kind of affordable and comprehensive coverage or access to care their Members of Congress receive. In addition, many patients in rural Oregon, even those with good health benefits, do not have access to providers or have to travel long distances to get medical care. Meanwhile, providers lack incentives to go to--or stay in--rural areas. It is a lot more lucrative for them to work in big cities where they can work in state-of-the art facilities and earn top dollar. According to the Oregon State Office of Rural Health, a major obstacle facing Oregon's rural health clinics is the severe shortage of health care providers willing or able to work in a rural area. One out of three Oregon rural health clinics was recruiting in 2008. That is why Senator Barrasso and I come here to introduce the Rural Health Clinic Patient Access and Improvement Act. Simply put, our bill would help improve access for patients in rural areas, while increasing reimbursement rates and giving incentives to providers in rural areas. The Rural Health Clinic Patient Access and Improvement Act increases the all-inclusive Medicare payment rate for rural health clinics by more than 20 percent per visit from an average of $76 to $92. This bill would provide an additional $2 bonus for rural health clinics that participate in a quality improvement program. Quality of care should be a focus for all providers. The bill will allow for better collaboration between community health centers and rural health clinics. It also creates a 5-state demonstration project to recruit and retain providers in rural communities by subsidizing a portion of the provider's medical liability costs if they practice in a rural health clinic. These reforms will help ensure rural residents have access to the same level of quality care as those in other parts of the country. This bill builds upon the success of Oregon's 54 rural health clinics that serve 26 out of 36 counties across the state. These rural health clinics help to ensure access to primary care for the underserved elderly and low-income populations. Ninety-eight percent of Oregon's rural health clinics are willing to see Medicare and Medicaid patients as well as patients with no insurance. Not only are they willing to see these patients, but 96 percent are currently accepting new patients. Many rural residents--whether they are uninsured, publically insured or have private insurance--would have nowhere to go to receive primary care without rural health clinics. When it comes to health care, people want to go to a provider they know and trust. One of the reasons rural health clinics have been so successful is that they have become an integral part of their communities. A great example of this is Gilliam County Medical Center. Gilliam County hosted a succession of short-term physicians placed in the community through the National Health Service Corps. In the 1970s, the community, in conjunction with the State, sought a more permanent, stable health care provider situation. The Oregon legislature appropriated $20,000 as seed money to attract a team of health professionals to the community and the residents of Gilliam County created the South Gilliam Health District to support Gilliam County Medical Center, a certified rural health clinic. Two physician assistants, David Jones and Dennis Bruneau who were on the faculty at the University of Washington PA program at the time they heard about the opportunity with the clinic were hired. Dave, Dennis, their spouses, who also work at the clinic, and supervising physician Dr. Bruce Carlson created a team that continues to sustain one of the most stable and long-term small rural primary care clinics in the state. Dr. Carlson visits the clinic one day every 2 weeks to see those patients in need of his services and provide overall medical direction. Otherwise, the clinic is staffed full-time by physician assistants Jones and Bruneau. David's wife is a medical technician who works in the clinic and Dennis' wife serves as the clinic manager. When Dr. Carlson is not in Condon, he has his own medical practice 70 miles away in Hermiston, OR, which is also the location of the nearest hospital to Condon. Not all rural areas are alike and the rural health clinic program gives these providers the flexibility they need to be the regular source of care of primary care in their communities. Regular access to primary care, as you know, is one of the key tests of whether or not you will receive the preventive health screenings that can mean the difference that could save your life. They allow for health problems to be caught early on so that they can be headed off for just a little money, instead of at later stages, which require costly specialty care that runs up the bill for the patient and the taxpayer. Oregonians in rural areas have the same right to quality, affordable medical care as those living in urban areas, but they do not have it under our current system. This bill will expand access to health care for folks in rural areas and level the playing field for rural health clinics by giving them the tools they need to attract and retain quality medical providers. I want to thank Senator Barrasso and his staff for their hard work in bringing this important bipartisan legislation before the Senate. I hope my colleagues will join Senator Barrasso and me, and support this much needed and bipartisan bill.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that I hope will enable our national intelligence agencies to increase their employees' proficiency in critical foreign languages. I have been a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee for over eight years, and during that time I have sat in a number of briefings and hearings that addressed foreign language capabilities. While specific details regarding the intelligence community's capabilities are generally classified, it is no secret that there is still a great need for more analysts and agents trained in key foreign languages. Over the past few years there have been a number of new initiatives designed to address this problem from different angles, and even newer initiatives are being introduced this year. The legislation that I am introducing today, which I have drafted along with Senator Chambliss of Georgia, is not designed to replace any of those initiatives--rather, we think it will complement those other initiatives by filling a key gap. Let me explain this gap a little, so it will be clear what problem we are trying to fix. Most efforts to improve the language capabilities of various intelligence agencies focus on recruiting Americans who have a background in critical foreign languages--either from their education, or from their family. But this only attacks the problem from one angle. If you want the national security workforce to have the strongest language skills possible, you also need to improve language training for people who already work for the intelligence agencies. This means both teaching the basics of key languages to more people, and helping people who are already proficient improve their skills further. Unfortunately, language training is time-intensive, and this can mean that personnel are diverted from short-term priorities. Here is an example of how this problem might crop up in practice. Imagine that you are the supervisor of a group of 10 people somewhere in the intelligence community, working on counterterrorism issues, and that one of those employees decides he wants to go spend several months in intensive language training to improve his Arabic. This would be a good career move for that individual, and a good long-term investment for your agency. But for you, the supervisor, it means that you might be short-handed for several months while one of your employees is off getting language training. Since you have a fixed number of positions available for your office, it is difficult for you to replace someone while they are gone. This means that as the supervisor you actually have an incentive to resist letting that employee head off for language training, since it will leave your team less well-equipped to meet short-term priorities. I am not saying that all supervisors within the intelligence community are focused solely on short-term priorities, to the detriment of our long-term security interests. But I am saying that if we want our intelligence agencies to effectively balance short- and long-term priorities, we need to give them incentives that encourage them to do so, and not penalize people who try to balance short-term needs and long-term goals. Here is how the bipartisan legislation that Senator Chambliss and I are introducing today would attempt to address this problem. Our bill would give the Director of National Intelligence the authority to transfer additional positions to offices whose personnel are temporarily unavailable due to language training. The Director of National Intelligence is uniquely situated to evaluate which offices are most in need of these extra positions, and could transfer them to the places where they would do the most good. So, to return to my previous example, if you were the supervisor of a young counterterrorism analyst who wants to take 6 months to go learn Arabic, you could go ask the Director of National Intelligence to transfer an extra position to your office for that 6 month period. That way, you could bring someone else in on a temporary basis to do that analyst's work while they are gone for training. The analyst and the agency would get the long-term benefits of additional language training, and you, the supervisor, would not have to sacrifice in the short-term. Senator Chambliss and I do not claim that this legislation will revolutionize the intelligence community's language capabilities overnight. But it is our hope that it will make it easier than it is today for managers to balance short- and long-term priorities. If we can achieve that it will be good for our national intelligence workforce, and for our national security interests.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate segments of the Molalla River as Wild and Scenic. I am pleased to be introducing this legislation with my colleague from Oregon, Senator Merkley. This legislation has already been introduced by Representative Schrader in the House, who is a champion for protecting the river. The Molalla River Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 2009 will designate an approximately 15.1-mile segment of the Molalla River, and an approximately 6.2-mile segment of Table Rock Fork Molalla River as a recreational river under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. The Molalla River Wild and Scenic Rivers Act protects a popular Oregon destination that provides abundant recreational activities all of which take place among the abundant wildlife that call this area home. The scenic beauty of the Molalla River provides a backdrop for hiking, mountain biking, camping, and horseback riding, while the waters of the river are a popular destination for fishing, kayaking, and whitewater rafting enthusiasts. My bill would not only preserve this area as a recreation destination, but would also protect the river habitat of the Chinook salmon and Steelhead trout, along with the wildlife habitat surrounding the river, home to the northern spotted owl, the pileated woodpecker, golden and bald eagles, deer, elk, the pacific giant salamander, and many others. The Molalla River is not only an important habitat for wildlife and a popular northwest recreation destination, but it is also the source of clean drinking water for the towns of Molalla and Canby, Oregon. Protecting the approximately 21.3 miles of the Molalla River will provide the residents of these Oregon towns with the assurance that they will continue to receive clean drinking water, and will provide all the people of the Pacific Northwest and beyond the knowledge that this important natural resource will be preserved for continued enjoyment for years to come. I want to express my thanks to the Molalla River Alliance--a coalition of more than 45 organizations that recognize that this river is a jewel. Michael Moody, the President of this Alliance, made sure that irrigators, city councilors, the mayor, businesses and environmentalists all came together on this. I look forward to working with Senator Merkley, Representative Schrader, and the bill's supporters to advance this legislation to the President's desk. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, along with my friend, Senator Barrasso, I am introducing legislation to keep rural America from becoming a health care sacrifice zone. Our legislation, the Rural Health Clinic Patient Access and Improvement Act, will make it more financially attractive for doctors and other providers to treat patients in rural areas. Both Senator Barrasso and I have heard from the folks back home about how hard it is to get doctors and mid-level practitioners in rural areas. My constituents have had to travel hours to get treatment when they need it. This bill takes major strides to ensure access to health care by building on the successes of the rural health clinic program. When it comes to health care, rural residents should not have to accept second-class status. As the Senate takes up comprehensive healthcare reform, this Congress must not lose focus on the health needs of folks in rural areas. Too many Oregonians cannot get the kind of affordable and comprehensive coverage or access to care their Members of Congress receive. In addition, many patients in rural Oregon, even those with good health benefits, do not have access to providers or have to travel long distances to get medical care. Meanwhile, providers lack incentives to go to--or stay in--rural areas. It is a lot more lucrative for them to work in big cities where they can work in state-of-the art facilities and earn top dollar. According to the Oregon State Office of Rural Health, a major obstacle facing Oregon's rural health clinics is the severe shortage of health care providers willing or able to work in a rural area. One out of three Oregon rural health clinics was recruiting in 2008. That is why Senator Barrasso and I come here to introduce the Rural Health Clinic Patient Access and Improvement Act. Simply put, our bill would help improve access for patients in rural areas, while increasing reimbursement rates and giving incentives to providers in rural areas. The Rural Health Clinic Patient Access and Improvement Act increases the all-inclusive Medicare payment rate for rural health clinics by more than 20 percent per visit from an average of $76 to $92. This bill would provide an additional $2 bonus for rural health clinics that participate in a quality improvement program. Quality of care should be a focus for all providers. The bill will allow for better collaboration between community health centers and rural health clinics. It also creates a 5-state demonstration project to recruit and retain providers in rural communities by subsidizing a portion of the provider's medical liability costs if they practice in a rural health clinic. These reforms will help ensure rural residents have access to the same level of quality care as those in other parts of the country. This bill builds upon the success of Oregon's 54 rural health clinics that serve 26 out of 36 counties across the state. These rural health clinics help to ensure access to primary care for the underserved elderly and low-income populations. Ninety-eight percent of Oregon's rural health clinics are willing to see Medicare and Medicaid patients as well as patients with no insurance. Not only are they willing to see these patients, but 96 percent are currently accepting new patients. Many rural residents--whether they are uninsured, publically insured or have private insurance--would have nowhere to go to receive primary care without rural health clinics. When it comes to health care, people want to go to a provider they know and trust. One of the reasons rural health clinics have been so successful is that they have become an integral part of their communities. A great example of this is Gilliam County Medical Center. Gilliam County hosted a succession of short-term physicians placed in the community through the National Health Service Corps. In the 1970s, the community, in conjunction with the State, sought a more permanent, stable health care provider situation. The Oregon legislature appropriated $20,000 as seed money to attract a team of health professionals to the community and the residents of Gilliam County created the South Gilliam Health District to support Gilliam County Medical Center, a certified rural health clinic. Two physician assistants, David Jones and Dennis Bruneau who were on the faculty at the University of Washington PA program at the time they heard about the opportunity with the clinic were hired. Dave, Dennis, their spouses, who also work at the clinic, and supervising physician Dr. Bruce Carlson created a team that continues to sustain one of the most stable and long-term small rural primary care clinics in the state. Dr. Carlson visits the clinic one day every 2 weeks to see those patients in need of his services and provide overall medical direction. Otherwise, the clinic is staffed full-time by physician assistants Jones and Bruneau. David's wife is a medical technician who works in the clinic and Dennis' wife serves as the clinic manager. When Dr. Carlson is not in Condon, he has his own medical practice 70 miles away in Hermiston, OR, which is also the location of the nearest hospital to Condon. Not all rural areas are alike and the rural health clinic program gives these providers the flexibility they need to be the regular source of care of primary care in their communities. Regular access to primary care, as you know, is one of the key tests of whether or not you will receive the preventive health screenings that can mean the difference that could save your life. They allow for health problems to be caught early on so that they can be headed off for just a little money, instead of at later stages, which require costly specialty care that runs up the bill for the patient and the taxpayer. Oregonians in rural areas have the same right to quality, affordable medical care as those living in urban areas, but they do not have it under our current system. This bill will expand access to health care for folks in rural areas and level the playing field for rural health clinics by giving them the tools they need to attract and retain quality medical providers. I want to thank Senator Barrasso and his staff for their hard work in bringing this important bipartisan legislation before the Senate. I hope my colleagues will join Senator Barrasso and me, and support this much needed and bipartisan bill.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, part of my job as a Senator from a beautiful State like Oregon is to keep that beauty protected for the next generation of Oregonians. Today it is my pleasure to introduce three bills to add environmental protections for three of Oregon's special natural resources. I have introduced two of these bills before. The Oregon Caves National Monument Boundary Adjustment Act of 2009 and the Lower Rogue Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 2009 were introduced in 2008 but unfortunately there was not an opportunity to move them beyond the Energy Committee. This year, I look forward to moving these two bills forward to final passage, along with a third bill, the Devil's Staircase Wilderness Act of 2009. I am pleased to introduce two of these bills with my colleague from Oregon, Senator Merkley. My colleague in the House of Representatives, Representative DeFazio, will also be introducing companion legislation today, joined by Representatives Blumenauer and Wu. The first bill I am introducing, S. 1270, the Oregon Caves National Monument Boundary Adjustment Act of 2009, will expand the boundary of the National Park Service land to create the Oregon Caves National Monument and Preserve. Under this bill, the stunning majesty of both the underground and the above-ground treasures found at this National Monument site will be protected for future generations. Established by a Presidential Proclamation in 1909, the Oregon Caves National Monument is a 480-acre natural wonder located in the botanically-rich Siskiyou Mountains. It was originally set aside because of its unusual scientific interest and importance. Oregon Caves has a unique geologic history and is particularly known as the longest marble cave open to the public west of the Continental Divide. A perennial stream, the ``River Styx''--an underground portion of Cave Creek--flows through part of the cave and is one of the dynamic natural forces at work in the National Monument. The cave ecosystem provides habitat for numerous plants and animals, including some state- sensitive species such as Townsend's big-eared bats and several cave- adapted species of arthropods found only in only one place on Earth: the Oregon Caves. The caves possess a significant collection of Pleistocene aged fossils, including jaguar and grizzly bear. In 1995, grizzly bear bones found in the cave were estimated to be at least 50,000 years old, the oldest known from either North or South America. Today, I am proposing legislation that will enhance the protection for treasures such as these found within the Oregon Caves National Monument and that will increase public recreation opportunities by adding surrounding lands to the National Park Service site. My bill would expand the park site by 4,084 acres to include the entire Cave Creek Watershed, and transfer management of the land from the U.S. Forest Service to the National Park Service. The newly acquired lands will be designated as a Preserve so that hunters can still use them. In addition, my legislation would designate at least 9.6 miles of rivers and tributaries as Wild, Scenic, or Recreational, under the federal Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, including the first subterranean Wild and Scenic River, the River Styx. This bill would also authorize the retirement of existing grazing allotments. When the Oregon Caves National Monument was established in 1909, the focus was on the unique subsurface resources, and the small rectangular boundary was thought to be adequate to protect the cave. Through the years, however, scientific research and technology have provided new information about the cave's ecology, and the impacts from the surface environment and the related hydrological processes. The current 480- acre boundary simply cannot adequately protect this cave system. The National Park Service has formally proposed a boundary modification numerous times, first in 1939, again in 1949, and most recently in 2000. Today, I am happy to again propose legislation to enact that boundary adjustment into law. The Oregon Caves National Monument makes a unique contribution to Southern Oregon's economy and to the national heritage. The Monument receives over 80,000 visitors annually and a larger Monument boundary will help showcase more fully the recreational opportunities on the above-ground lands within the proposed Monument boundary. The Monument's above-ground lands in the Siskiyou Mountains possess a beauty and diversity that is unique in America, and indeed the world. The Oregon Caves National Monument's approximately 500 plants, 5,000 animals, 2,000 fungi, and over a million bacteria per acre that make the spot have one of the highest concentrations of biological diversity anywhere. Expanding the Monument's boundary will also preserve the caves' resources by protecting the water that enters the cave. By granting the National Park Service the ability to safeguard these resources, and by providing for a voluntary donation of grazing permits, my legislation will be able to better protect these resources. Over the decades, the number of allowed livestock has diminished, but the livestock still has an impact on the drinking water supply and the water quality of this natural gem. The current grazing permitee, Phil Krouse's family, has had the Big Grayback Grazing Allotment, 19,703 acres, since 1937. Mr. Krouse has publicly stated that he would look favorably upon retirement with private compensation for his allotment, which my legislation will allow to proceed. The second bill I am introducing is, 1271, the Lower Rogue Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 2009, which expands the Wild and Scenic River protections to Oregon's iconic Rogue River and its tributaries. The Rogue River is one of our nation's premier recreation destinations, famous for its free flowing waters and the many rafting and fishing opportunities it offers. The headwaters of this great river start in one of Oregon's other great gems--Crater Lake National Park-- and ultimately empty into the Pacific Ocean near Gold Beach on the southwest Oregon coast. Along that stretch, the Rogue River flows through one of the most spectacular canyons and diverse natural areas in the U.S. The river is home to runs of coho, spring and fall chinook, winter and summer steelhead, and has the special distinction of being one of only a few rivers in the country with runs of green sturgeon. The Rogue River received its first protections in the original Wild and Scenic Rivers Act in 1968. A narrow stretch of land was protected along the river banks. Since that time, a great deal has been learned about the importance of protecting the tributaries that feed into the main stem of the Rogue. Protecting the Wild and Scenic tributaries to the Rogue River is essential to protecting the backbone of one of Oregon's most important sport and commercial fisheries. In 2008, American Rivers named the Rogue and its tributaries as the second most endangered river in the U.S. I'm hoping to change that today by introducing legislation to protect 143 miles of Wild and Scenic tributaries that feed the Rogue River with cold clean water. The protected tributaries would include Galice Creek, Little Windy Creek, Jenny Creek, Long Gulch--and 36 other tributaries of the Rogue. By protecting the tributaries that feed this mighty river, I hope that future generations can enjoy the Rogue River as Oregonians and visitors to our State do today. The third bill I am introducing is, 1272, the Devil's Staircase Wilderness Act of 2009, which designates approximately 29,650 acres surrounding the Wasson Creek area as Wilderness. Devil's Staircase personifies what Wilderness in Oregon is all about. It is rugged, wild, pristine and remote. So rugged, in fact, that land managers have repeatedly withdrawn this landslide-prone forest from all timbering activity and intrepid hikers must follow elk and deer trails and keep a sharp eye on a compass. The proposed Devil's Staircase Wilderness is the finest old-growth forest remaining in Oregon's Coast Range, boasting huge Douglas fir, cedar and hemlock and a wealth of threatened and endangered species. Wildlife include threatened marbled murrelets and the highest density of Northern Spotted Owls in the coastal mountains. My proposal would not only protect the forests surrounding Wasson Creek but would also designate approximately 4.5 miles of Franklin Creek and approximately 10.1 miles of Wasson Creek as Wild and Scenic Rivers. Franklin Creek, a critically important tributary to the Umpqua River, is one of the best examples of pristine salmon habitat left in Oregon. Together with Wasson Creek, these two streams in the Devil's Staircase area deserve Wild and Scenic River designation by Congress. The ecological significance of this treasure is apparent. The land is protected as a Late-Successional Reserve by the Northwest Forest Plan, as critical habitat for the northern spotted owl, and as an Area of Critical Environmental Concern by the Bureau of Land Management. Preserving these majestic forests as Wilderness for their wildlife and spectacular scenery matches the goals of the existing land management plans. I look forward to protecting this gem for future generations. Finally, I want to express my thanks to the conservation, recreation and business communities of southern and coastal Oregon, and Phil Krouse for his strong conservation ethic. All of them have worked diligently to protect these special places. I look forward to working with Senator Merkley, Representative DeFazio, and my House colleagues and the bill's other supporters to keep up the fight for these unique places in Oregon and get these pieces of legislation to the President's desk for his signature.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, part of my job as a Senator from a beautiful State like Oregon is to keep that beauty protected for the next generation of Oregonians. Today it is my pleasure to introduce three bills to add environmental protections for three of Oregon's special natural resources. I have introduced two of these bills before. The Oregon Caves National Monument Boundary Adjustment Act of 2009 and the Lower Rogue Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 2009 were introduced in 2008 but unfortunately there was not an opportunity to move them beyond the Energy Committee. This year, I look forward to moving these two bills forward to final passage, along with a third bill, the Devil's Staircase Wilderness Act of 2009. I am pleased to introduce two of these bills with my colleague from Oregon, Senator Merkley. My colleague in the House of Representatives, Representative DeFazio, will also be introducing companion legislation today, joined by Representatives Blumenauer and Wu. The first bill I am introducing, S. 1270, the Oregon Caves National Monument Boundary Adjustment Act of 2009, will expand the boundary of the National Park Service land to create the Oregon Caves National Monument and Preserve. Under this bill, the stunning majesty of both the underground and the above-ground treasures found at this National Monument site will be protected for future generations. Established by a Presidential Proclamation in 1909, the Oregon Caves National Monument is a 480-acre natural wonder located in the botanically-rich Siskiyou Mountains. It was originally set aside because of its unusual scientific interest and importance. Oregon Caves has a unique geologic history and is particularly known as the longest marble cave open to the public west of the Continental Divide. A perennial stream, the ``River Styx''--an underground portion of Cave Creek--flows through part of the cave and is one of the dynamic natural forces at work in the National Monument. The cave ecosystem provides habitat for numerous plants and animals, including some state- sensitive species such as Townsend's big-eared bats and several cave- adapted species of arthropods found only in only one place on Earth: the Oregon Caves. The caves possess a significant collection of Pleistocene aged fossils, including jaguar and grizzly bear. In 1995, grizzly bear bones found in the cave were estimated to be at least 50,000 years old, the oldest known from either North or South America. Today, I am proposing legislation that will enhance the protection for treasures such as these found within the Oregon Caves National Monument and that will increase public recreation opportunities by adding surrounding lands to the National Park Service site. My bill would expand the park site by 4,084 acres to include the entire Cave Creek Watershed, and transfer management of the land from the U.S. Forest Service to the National Park Service. The newly acquired lands will be designated as a Preserve so that hunters can still use them. In addition, my legislation would designate at least 9.6 miles of rivers and tributaries as Wild, Scenic, or Recreational, under the federal Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, including the first subterranean Wild and Scenic River, the River Styx. This bill would also authorize the retirement of existing grazing allotments. When the Oregon Caves National Monument was established in 1909, the focus was on the unique subsurface resources, and the small rectangular boundary was thought to be adequate to protect the cave. Through the years, however, scientific research and technology have provided new information about the cave's ecology, and the impacts from the surface environment and the related hydrological processes. The current 480- acre boundary simply cannot adequately protect this cave system. The National Park Service has formally proposed a boundary modification numerous times, first in 1939, again in 1949, and most recently in 2000. Today, I am happy to again propose legislation to enact that boundary adjustment into law. The Oregon Caves National Monument makes a unique contribution to Southern Oregon's economy and to the national heritage. The Monument receives over 80,000 visitors annually and a larger Monument boundary will help showcase more fully the recreational opportunities on the above-ground lands within the proposed Monument boundary. The Monument's above-ground lands in the Siskiyou Mountains possess a beauty and diversity that is unique in America, and indeed the world. The Oregon Caves National Monument's approximately 500 plants, 5,000 animals, 2,000 fungi, and over a million bacteria per acre that make the spot have one of the highest concentrations of biological diversity anywhere. Expanding the Monument's boundary will also preserve the caves' resources by protecting the water that enters the cave. By granting the National Park Service the ability to safeguard these resources, and by providing for a voluntary donation of grazing permits, my legislation will be able to better protect these resources. Over the decades, the number of allowed livestock has diminished, but the livestock still has an impact on the drinking water supply and the water quality of this natural gem. The current grazing permitee, Phil Krouse's family, has had the Big Grayback Grazing Allotment, 19,703 acres, since 1937. Mr. Krouse has publicly stated that he would look favorably upon retirement with private compensation for his allotment, which my legislation will allow to proceed. The second bill I am introducing is, 1271, the Lower Rogue Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 2009, which expands the Wild and Scenic River protections to Oregon's iconic Rogue River and its tributaries. The Rogue River is one of our nation's premier recreation destinations, famous for its free flowing waters and the many rafting and fishing opportunities it offers. The headwaters of this great river start in one of Oregon's other great gems--Crater Lake National Park-- and ultimately empty into the Pacific Ocean near Gold Beach on the southwest Oregon coast. Along that stretch, the Rogue River flows through one of the most spectacular canyons and diverse natural areas in the U.S. The river is home to runs of coho, spring and fall chinook, winter and summer steelhead, and has the special distinction of being one of only a few rivers in the country with runs of green sturgeon. The Rogue River received its first protections in the original Wild and Scenic Rivers Act in 1968. A narrow stretch of land was protected along the river banks. Since that time, a great deal has been learned about the importance of protecting the tributaries that feed into the main stem of the Rogue. Protecting the Wild and Scenic tributaries to the Rogue River is essential to protecting the backbone of one of Oregon's most important sport and commercial fisheries. In 2008, American Rivers named the Rogue and its tributaries as the second most endangered river in the U.S. I'm hoping to change that today by introducing legislation to protect 143 miles of Wild and Scenic tributaries that feed the Rogue River with cold clean water. The protected tributaries would include Galice Creek, Little Windy Creek, Jenny Creek, Long Gulch--and 36 other tributaries of the Rogue. By protecting the tributaries that feed this mighty river, I hope that future generations can enjoy the Rogue River as Oregonians and visitors to our State do today. The third bill I am introducing is, 1272, the Devil's Staircase Wilderness Act of 2009, which designates approximately 29,650 acres surrounding the Wasson Creek area as Wilderness. Devil's Staircase personifies what Wilderness in Oregon is all about. It is rugged, wild, pristine and remote. So rugged, in fact, that land managers have repeatedly withdrawn this landslide-prone forest from all timbering activity and intrepid hikers must follow elk and deer trails and keep a sharp eye on a compass. The proposed Devil's Staircase Wilderness is the finest old-growth forest remaining in Oregon's Coast Range, boasting huge Douglas fir, cedar and hemlock and a wealth of threatened and endangered species. Wildlife include threatened marbled murrelets and the highest density of Northern Spotted Owls in the coastal mountains. My proposal would not only protect the forests surrounding Wasson Creek but would also designate approximately 4.5 miles of Franklin Creek and approximately 10.1 miles of Wasson Creek as Wild and Scenic Rivers. Franklin Creek, a critically important tributary to the Umpqua River, is one of the best examples of pristine salmon habitat left in Oregon. Together with Wasson Creek, these two streams in the Devil's Staircase area deserve Wild and Scenic River designation by Congress. The ecological significance of this treasure is apparent. The land is protected as a Late-Successional Reserve by the Northwest Forest Plan, as critical habitat for the northern spotted owl, and as an Area of Critical Environmental Concern by the Bureau of Land Management. Preserving these majestic forests as Wilderness for their wildlife and spectacular scenery matches the goals of the existing land management plans. I look forward to protecting this gem for future generations. Finally, I want to express my thanks to the conservation, recreation and business communities of southern and coastal Oregon, and Phil Krouse for his strong conservation ethic. All of them have worked diligently to protect these special places. I look forward to working with Senator Merkley, Representative DeFazio, and my House colleagues and the bill's other supporters to keep up the fight for these unique places in Oregon and get these pieces of legislation to the President's desk for his signature.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, many Senators on both sides of the aisle are working constructively to fix American health care. For several years, I have spent time listening to colleagues, going to the offices of 85 Senators and at least that many in the House, and to thousands of others in the public and private sectors, about their ideas for fixing American health care. My aim with these discussions has been to find common ground and to chart a path so that this Congress and this President can do something this country has never done before: enact real health reform. Today, I come to the floor to lay out the specifics of real health care reform. The President said yesterday that there has never been a better opportunity to get the job done; to improve the lives of all Americans and guarantee quality, affordable coverage to all of our people. The question now is will Democrats and Republicans in the Senate rise to this challenge? Will this Congress and the President overcome the fear tactics that have derailed past efforts? But maybe equally as important: Will this Congress and our President dare to pass real reform? The pitfall, as I see it, is that too often we have been afraid of failure. If we draft legislation with an eye only on what we think can get passed, on what we think the American people will buy, if we play it too safe, my fear is that we will miss the opportunity for real reform. I believe that passing a reform bill that does not reform the health care system is about as wrong as not passing any bill at all. President Obama said yesterday he will only support legislation that ``earns the title of reform.'' I agree with the President, which is why I am going to use this morning to lay down a similar marker for what I believe is necessary to ``earn the title of real reform.'' First, real reform means that all of us, and especially the powerful interest groups, must accept changes resisted in the past. Insurers are going to have to change the way they do business. Pharmaceutical companies will have to be more responsive to purchasers that insist on more value and transparency. Doctors and hospitals will be held accountable for the quality of care they provide. Malpractice suits will be held to stricter standards. Individuals will have to take greater responsibility for their health. Real health reform means changing the way business is done in the private insurance market. It means an end to insurance companies cherry-picking, a practice where the companies take the healthy people and send sick people over to government programs more fragile than they are. No longer should anyone make money by denying care to someone who needs it. That is wrong, and this Congress will make it illegal. Real reform means everyone is guaranteed coverage by their choice of insurer. Under any new system, insurance companies must be required to cover everyone and they must be required to price with fairness so you do not get discriminated against because of your gender or your health status or your age. It means you will no longer be denied coverage or charged more because you were sick 5 years ago or today or you might be sick 5 years from now. Real health reform guarantees that all Americans can choose their doctor and their health plan. The President said yesterday: Real reform will give every American access to the insurance exchange where they can choose to keep the care they have or pick a better plan that meets their families' needs. That means if you like the care you have, you can keep it. But it also means that if you do not like the care you have, you can reject it. You can reject it and choose a better plan. Real reform would not only cover the uninsured, but it will make the lives of all of those who have insurance coverage better. Right now the majority of Americans who are lucky enough to have employer coverage have no choice in where they get their insurance. I believe these Americans deserve choices too. Some might say that this undermines the employer-based system. No, it does not. Rather, it makes the employer-based system more accountable at the same time that it makes health care more portable. Real health reform means that if you leave your job or your job leaves you, you will not lose your health care coverage. Real reform will once and for all end the entrepreneurial tax in which Americans are afraid to go into business for themselves because they cannot take their health care with them. The President himself said it best when he wrote in 2006, ``With Americans changing jobs more frequently, more likely to go through spells of unemployment, and more likely to work part time or to be self-employed, health insurance can't just run through employers anymore, it must be portable.'' Real reform will guarantee that all Americans can afford quality health care. No longer should families be forced to pay more for their health insurance premiums than they pay for their housing. Our goal should not be to exempt those Americans who cannot afford to pay, our goal should be to guarantee that every American can afford the health care they need. Real reform will be affordable for the Nation and for our taxpayers. It will reduce current costs and bring the rate of health care inflation in line with economic growth. Failure to meet this test would result in massive new government obligations and no means to pay for them. Real reform must end the health care caste system in which low-income Americans are treated as second-class citizens. No longer should low- income Americans have less access to doctors than their Member of Congress or any other American. Today, 37 million adults and 10 million children effectively lack access to a primary care physician. Those are Americans who have health insurance but who cannot find a doctor to care for them. Real reform means ending the caste system in America that, in my view, discriminates against the most vulnerable and most impoverished among us. Real reform means that when you need a doctor you will be able to see one. Real reform will reward Americans for making smart choices. Americans should be rewarded for choosing the right insurer for their families, and they should be rewarded for choosing a healthy lifestyle. This means creating a health system that no longer focuses primarily on sick care, but puts a priority on prevention as well. Real reform will change the incentives that drive behavior in the American health system. It will reduce the demand and desire for unnecessary health care services. Health care institutions will no longer profit from the quantity of procedures they run up but will instead be rewarded for quality care. Real reform will take an axe to administrative costs. Americans will sign up just once for health care. They will have their premiums taken from their withholding so they do not have to worry about making payments. They will go into large efficient groups so they are no longer left on their own in the individual market. In today's non-system, people are an afterthought to the self- perpetuating bureaucracy of medical billing, reimbursement fights, coverage fights, and outright fraud, waste, and abuse. Like the President said yesterday, real reform will: ``Replicate best practices; incentivize excellence; close cost disparities.'' In effect, he wants to see health care dollars go to pay for quality, efficient health care. And that is what I have described today. Real reform means providing care. It means guaranteeing that all Americans have good, quality, affordable coverage, coverage that is portable. It means ensuring we end the caste system so all Americans can see doctors when they need one. And it means creating a system that is more intent on keeping people healthy than profiting from illness. The central question, when it comes to real reform, is not who pays, but how we pay. Because everyone knows that ultimately the American taxpayer is the one footing the bill. It is now Congress's job to create an accountable system that puts the focus where it belongs, not on misguided incentives, not on shedding risk, not on quarterly profits, but on providing quality, efficient care for all our people. That is what Americans want from this debate about health care reform. That is what I think can bring Democrats and Republicans together, working with the President under the banner of real reform. The country deserves it. It is time for this Congress to give it to our people. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, how much time remains on the Democratic side?