Ron Wyden

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, as the credit crisis has gripped the nation, more and more families are relying on their credit cards to help them weather the storm. Unfortunately, as more folks use their credit cards, many more consumers are falling victim to the industry's abusive practices. I am pleased that my colleagues in both the Senate and House are working hard to swiftly fix some of the most egregious existing practices. Like many of my colleagues, I agree that some of the credit card industry's practices are unconscionable. For example some provisions today allow issuers to raise the interest on a consumer to astronomical rates just because of a drop in their credit score or a missed payment on another, unrelated credit card. That's like having your home mortgage go into default because you missed a payment on your car loan. It is not fair and it's predatory. Clearly, competition in the credit card industry is not working for consumers. Card issuers are not competing on the merits of their cards because consumers are still not able to make good comparisons on the overall cost of using their products. Consumers tend to focus on the interest rate and annual fees, not realizing that many of the little disclosures hidden in the legalese of their contracts can make the real cost of credit significantly higher. Some practices are truly abusive and it may be best for Congress to eliminate those. However, while eliminating these practices would help protect some of the most vulnerable consumers, it would not solve the underlying systematic problem. For each abusive practice that Congress eliminates, another will pop up. That is why there must be a way to arm consumers with the information they need before they sign up for a credit card in order to reject such unfair practices. With the financial future of so many Americans now dependent upon the unreadable jargon in credit card documents, consumers need to understand what they are getting into. That is why I am introducing the Credit Card Safety Star Act of 2009. Last Congress, I introduced this legislation with then-Senator Obama because we both agreed that consumers need a simple way to cut through the unreadable jargon in agreements. My bill creates a safety rating system for credit cards, like the five-star crash rating system for new cars. The rating system for cars helps people understand how their car will protect them in a crash; my bill will help people understand if they can expect their card issuer to treat them fairly or kick them when they are down. Five-star cards would be the safest while one-star cards would be the least safe. Cards are rewarded for terms that are consumer friendly and get knocked for the tricky terms that tend to get consumers in trouble. For example, card issuers that can change the terms at any time for any reason or those that make consumers go into default based on credit ratings or other accounts would automatically receive a one-star rating. However, card issuers that innovate new ways to make their agreements more consumer friendly could get points to out-compete others in the industry. For example, credit cards that give 90 days notice before the issuer intends to change terms, with the option for consumers to opt out, would get a point. Under my system, card issuers would have to display the ratings on all their marketing materials, billing statements, agreement materials and on the back of the card itself. Consumers would also be able to see the ratings for their card and how their card got that rating on a stand-alone Federal Reserve website. The Federal Reserve will be responsible for updating the star system and making sure that if new terms or practices come to market, those terms or practices are assigned an appropriate rating. Additionally, my legislation creates a Credit Card Safety Star Advisory Commission which would study the effectiveness of the star rating system. The Commission would also implement a study that would examine whether it would be better to eliminate certain unfair practices rather than simply giving them a rating under my system. My bill is designed to work in tandem with the other legislation that has already been introduced. While the Credit Card Safety Star Act will not ban any particular practices, it is designed to update if certain practices are banned. While my legislation is not a silver bullet to solve all the problems in the credit card industry, it can provide a way forward that will arm consumers with usable information about the tricky terms in these agreements. I believe it is time to put the free market to the test and see whether we can help consumers make better choices while also encouraging issuers to abandon some of these abusive practices and compete for consumers' business by offering them fair terms they can understand. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, as the credit crisis has gripped the nation, more and more families are relying on their credit cards to help them weather the storm. Unfortunately, as more folks use their credit cards, many more consumers are falling victim to the industry's abusive practices. I am pleased that my colleagues in both the Senate and House are working hard to swiftly fix some of the most egregious existing practices. Like many of my colleagues, I agree that some of the credit card industry's practices are unconscionable. For example some provisions today allow issuers to raise the interest on a consumer to astronomical rates just because of a drop in their credit score or a missed payment on another, unrelated credit card. That's like having your home mortgage go into default because you missed a payment on your car loan. It is not fair and it's predatory. Clearly, competition in the credit card industry is not working for consumers. Card issuers are not competing on the merits of their cards because consumers are still not able to make good comparisons on the overall cost of using their products. Consumers tend to focus on the interest rate and annual fees, not realizing that many of the little disclosures hidden in the legalese of their contracts can make the real cost of credit significantly higher. Some practices are truly abusive and it may be best for Congress to eliminate those. However, while eliminating these practices would help protect some of the most vulnerable consumers, it would not solve the underlying systematic problem. For each abusive practice that Congress eliminates, another will pop up. That is why there must be a way to arm consumers with the information they need before they sign up for a credit card in order to reject such unfair practices. With the financial future of so many Americans now dependent upon the unreadable jargon in credit card documents, consumers need to understand what they are getting into. That is why I am introducing the Credit Card Safety Star Act of 2009. Last Congress, I introduced this legislation with then-Senator Obama because we both agreed that consumers need a simple way to cut through the unreadable jargon in agreements. My bill creates a safety rating system for credit cards, like the five-star crash rating system for new cars. The rating system for cars helps people understand how their car will protect them in a crash; my bill will help people understand if they can expect their card issuer to treat them fairly or kick them when they are down. Five-star cards would be the safest while one-star cards would be the least safe. Cards are rewarded for terms that are consumer friendly and get knocked for the tricky terms that tend to get consumers in trouble. For example, card issuers that can change the terms at any time for any reason or those that make consumers go into default based on credit ratings or other accounts would automatically receive a one-star rating. However, card issuers that innovate new ways to make their agreements more consumer friendly could get points to out-compete others in the industry. For example, credit cards that give 90 days notice before the issuer intends to change terms, with the option for consumers to opt out, would get a point. Under my system, card issuers would have to display the ratings on all their marketing materials, billing statements, agreement materials and on the back of the card itself. Consumers would also be able to see the ratings for their card and how their card got that rating on a stand-alone Federal Reserve website. The Federal Reserve will be responsible for updating the star system and making sure that if new terms or practices come to market, those terms or practices are assigned an appropriate rating. Additionally, my legislation creates a Credit Card Safety Star Advisory Commission which would study the effectiveness of the star rating system. The Commission would also implement a study that would examine whether it would be better to eliminate certain unfair practices rather than simply giving them a rating under my system. My bill is designed to work in tandem with the other legislation that has already been introduced. While the Credit Card Safety Star Act will not ban any particular practices, it is designed to update if certain practices are banned. While my legislation is not a silver bullet to solve all the problems in the credit card industry, it can provide a way forward that will arm consumers with usable information about the tricky terms in these agreements. I believe it is time to put the free market to the test and see whether we can help consumers make better choices while also encouraging issuers to abandon some of these abusive practices and compete for consumers' business by offering them fair terms they can understand. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. For the remainder of my time, Madam President, let me tick off a number of other areas where Democrats and Republicans on this health care issue can come together for transformative change. Today's private insurance model is also broken. It is all about cherry-picking. It is about taking healthy people and sending sick people over to Government programs more fragile than they are. So what Democrats and Republicans want to do--again, in the name of transformative change--is we want to say that the companies are going to have to take all comers. We understand that is a key part of health care reform. But we are going to put them all on equal footing. There are not going to be any price controls or big Federal regulatory systems. But everybody is going to be part of a big group so we contain costs as part of a big pool. We will reward prevention and wellness, which, of course, is not done today. This is where I think it will be possible for firms in the health care area to both do good and do well by offering better service to our people. Other areas of transformative health care reform: The issue of portability and making sure our people can take their health care coverage with them so they do not lose their coverage when they lose their job or they wish to leave their job. That is what happens today. Of course, much of the health care system does not offer that kind of portability because it is built around what happened in the 1940s, when somebody started working and stayed put for 25 years, until you gave them a gold watch. Well, today the typical worker changes their job 11 times by the time they are 40. We need portable coverage. Democrats and Republicans can work together on that. I want to close, again in the name of bipartisanship, by talking about how we can help people who have coverage. They have been described by some as the contentedly covered Americans. I think what we ought to say for those folks, Democrats and Republicans, is, let's let them keep the coverage they have. Let's make sure they are wealthier in the new system because they get rewarded when they engage in those preventive practices or make a good purchase. Let's make sure they are healthier in the new system. Chairman Conrad is here and has talked about improvements, for example, in chronic care, which is certainly part of making Americans healthier. Finally, let's make sure that if they leave their job or their job leaves them, as I have touched on, they are going to have a safety net of affordable coverage. Each and every one of those points I have talked about is an issue on which Democrats and Republicans can come together. I hope the Senate will follow Chairman Conrad's advice about proceeding expeditiously. I think there are many Members of the Senate who want to tackle these big issues--climate change and health care--in a manner that makes reconciliation irrelevant because we have brought together the kind of broad majorities that I think are particularly within the grasp of the Senate on this issue of reforming health care. I look forward to working with colleagues on both sides of the aisle for exactly that kind of transformative policy to better meet the needs of the American people. With that, Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, Chairman Conrad has emphasized how important it will be to tackle the major issues--health care reform and climate change--in a bipartisan way. I wish to spend a few minutes first expressing my support for that position and urging that the conference on the budget proceed expeditiously because then the heavy lifting in the Senate will begin. For example, for American health care, what is needed is nothing short of a transformation of our system. American health care is simply broken. Medical costs are gobbling up everything in sight. Middle-class people know their paychecks are not going up, and the prime reason is because medical costs take away all of what would otherwise be a wage increase. Our newspapers report daily that Americans are being laid off at their jobs. They lose their health benefits. What we see again and again is a spiral of tragedy, as they simply lurch from one effort to another to try to find health care and cannot get it. For example, on Tuesday, the New York Times published a front page story titled, ``No Job and Soon No Benefits, Race to Help Son Stay Cancer Free.'' Dana Walker of Humble, Texas, was laid off from her job at DHL leaving her and her family without health insurance. Her son Jake is just 21 years old and is a cancer survivor. Now uninsured, the Walkers have had to defer their own care, pay up front for Jake's care, and have essentially been refused care at the hospital that specializes in care. In the article, Mrs. Walker said, ``Your job as a parent is to protect your children at any cost. I really feel like I had let him down.'' I don't believe Mrs. Walker has let her son down. She's doing all she can. In the individual market health insurers can discriminate on the basis of age, gender, family size, geography, health status and pre- existing conditions like cancer. Even though Jake has been cancer free for a year, he can't find affordable health insurance on his own. Insurance companies can pick and choose the customers who are the good risks and leave the bad risks, like Jake Walker, out in the cold. It isn't Mrs. Walker who's let her son down. It's the health care system. This is not going to be fixed by a piecemeal approach to health care reform that tackles one part of the system or another and produces incremental change for perhaps a short period of time. What is needed is transformational change. I believe Democrats and Republicans in the Senate are committed to that objective. I think there is a growing recognition that both parties have had a valid point. Democrats, in my view, are correct that you cannot fix health care unless you cover everybody because without full coverage you cannot organize the market. There is too much cost-shifting. There is no emphasis on prevention. You have to get all Americans good quality, affordable care. Republicans have valid points, in my view, as well. You should not just turn everything over to the Government and say that is the answer. What is really needed for transformational change is containing the costs. The Congressional Budget Office, last May, said that for the amount of money America is spending today on health care, all Americans in a couple years could have good quality, affordable coverage like their Members of Congress. That is what the Congressional Budget Office said when it looked at one approach to dealing with health costs. I am very confident, under the leadership of Chairman Baucus and Chairman Kennedy, that they will have a lot of support for transformational change so we make sure all Americans have access to good quality, affordable choices, and they get rewarded when they take sensible steps, for example, in preventive health care and wellness and shop carefully for health care coverage. Today, if you are lucky enough to have health care coverage, you do not get any choice at most employers. That is not the way it is for Members of Congress. So why don't we agree, Democrats and Republicans, after we get this budget conference put together, that we are going to make sure all Americans get good quality, affordable choices like Members of Congress have? Then let's start rewarding them. Let's reward them for sensible prevention. For example, the Safeway Corporation has been doing that for some time. I would like to say that seniors who lower their blood pressure and lower their cholesterol would get reduced Part B premiums. That is the outpatient portion of the Medicare program. But these are areas where Democrats and Republicans can come together. There has been considerable discussion on the Senate floor about the idea of reconciliation for tackling health care. I think Chairman Conrad is absolutely right in his approach. I will say there have been many of us on both the Democratic and Republican side, as we have looked to health care, who want to make the issue of reconciliation irrelevant. We want to make the issue of reconciliation irrelevant because we are hoping to bring enough Democrats and Republicans together so we will have 70 or more Senators gathered to fix the health care system. These issues, ultimately, in my view, are not ones that automatically produce a partisan divide. The private insurance system is also broken. It is about cherry-picking. Madam President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Could I have 10 as well?

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, If there is one environmental issue that divides us more than unites us, it's water, especially in the West. Farmers, ranchers, cities, towns, all compete for limited supplies. Salmon and other economically and culturally important fish depend on its flow. If it is not water quantity, then it is water quality that makes what gets passed on to the next water user the source of contention. The Clean Water Act has been enormously successful at making water users clean up the water that they use before it is discharged back into lakes, rivers, and streams, and, before it's used by the next person downstream. It has also helped ensure the survival of fish and wildlife. Over the past 8 years, the U.S. Supreme Court has rendered two major decisions that have restricted the scope of the Act. As it is now being interpreted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Corps of Engineers, the Act no longer prevents the discharge of pollution or fill into many wetlands or intermittent streams, lakes and ponds. By some estimates, more than half the streams in Oregon could be classified as intermittent streams and no longer protected. Another estimate concludes that over one million Oregonians get their drinking water from sources that would no longer be fully protected by the Clean Water Act. I think this is the wrong thing to do. Last year, I cosponsored S. 1870--the Clean Water Restoration Act-- legislation which was intended to return the protections of the Clean Water Act to the way they were before these two Supreme Court decisions occurred. No more, and no less. In my town hall meetings around Oregon, I have received questions and complaints about this legislation. The biggest concern that many people had was that this new bill was actually going to expand the reach of the Federal Government over water regulation in ways that would literally threaten the ability of farmers to farm and ranchers to ranch. People were also concerned that this legislation would not only regulate discharges into rivers and streams, but it would also regulate the quantity of water they use. I am no supporter of Federal water grabs. I would not have cosponsored this legislation in the last Congress if it would threaten Oregon farmers' ability to farm or our ranchers' ability to ranch. I would have opposed it. Ranchers and farmers and forest owners know how to be stewards of the land they ranch and farm and manage because their livelihoods depend on it, and if they are not careful about how they manage that land there will be nothing to pass on to the next generation. The same is true for how we must treat our rivers, streams and wetlands. So over the past few months, my staff and I have worked with Senator Feingold, the primary sponsor of the bill, to clarify that intent of this legislation is to simply restore the interpretation of the Clean Water Act to what it had been before these Supreme Court decisions. No more, and no less. Earlier this year, in response to my concerns about how the bill would impact rural Oregon, Senator Feingold reiterated in a letter to me his intent that the Clean Water Restoration Act not expand the scope of the law. Sen. Feingold also revised the text of the bill in a way that I believe makes it even clearer that the goal is not to expand the scope of the Clean Water Act beyond what it was in 2001 before the Supreme Court decisions. First of all, the bill again includes a savings clause that clearly continues the existing exemption for irrigation return flows from Clean Water Act regulation. It continues the exemption for dredged or fill materials from normal farming, silviculture and ranching activities. It continues the exemption for construction and maintenance of farm or stock ponds or irrigation ditches and drainage ditches. It continues the exemption for construction and maintenance of farm roads or forest roads. Second, the bill now contains a much more detailed set of findings that make it absolutely clear that the intent of Congress with enactment of the bill is to restore the regulatory system for the Clean Water Act to what it was before these two Supreme Court decisions. These findings also make it clear that the bill is not regulating ground water, only surface water, just as the Clean Water Act has always done. The findings make it clear that exclusions for prior converted cropland and manmade impoundments remain in place. They make it clear that the intent is to regulate water quality, not quantity or ownership. If more changes are needed to ensure that the bill does what Sen. Feingold and I say it does, than I am certainly open to making more changes to make sure the Senate gets this crucial issue right. Some people do not like the pre-2001 Clean Water Act regulatory system. Some believe that the Supreme Court did the right thing by removing many wetlands and intermittent streams and lakes from the protections of the Clean Water Act. I disagree. I think those protections are needed to protect our water supplies and our environment and wildlife habitat. Farmers and ranchers need those protections for their livelihoods. But I want to be absolutely clear, that I will not support expanding Federal authority in this area beyond what it was before 2001. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, this is an amendment that Senator Barrasso and I have offered to fully fund the Healthy Forests Restoration Act, by providing an additional $200 million for this purpose. I am very pleased that my colleague from Oregon, Senator Merkley, has also joined us in this amendment as well as Senators Crapo, Kyl, Enzi, Bennett and Hatch. Significantly, this amendment would provide for full funding for this legislation for the first time since its passage. I helped author the Healthy Forests Restoration Act in 2003--a bipartisan bill that I worked on with a number of my colleagues to help address serious forest health issues and a significant backlog of hazardous fuels that have been building up on our national forests. When Congress passed the Healthy Forests Restoration Act, HFRA, Congress authorized $760 million in new money to complete hazardous fuel reduction work on 20 million acres. Yet in each of the past years the Bush administration's budget request has fallen short, in my estimation by well over $600 million less than Congress authorized. Because the Healthy Forests Restoration Act was never fully funded in the prior administration, it has never really had the chance to work. Our amendment would ensure that rural communities will finally get the resources they were promised. These funds will put these communities on a path to preventing wildfires and bringing jobs back to the forest. In hearings before the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, previous administration leaders assured me that even in the face of such severe budget cuts, they could get the work done, possibly within 8 to 10 years. Yet in hearings before the committee we also heard witnesses from the GAO and USDA inspector general's office testify that the agencies were falling far short of meeting this mandate and that hazardous fuels were building up in our forests as much as three times faster than the agencies could remove them. When you come from a State like mine, where the Federal Government owns so much of the land, the health of those public forests is a very serious issue--one with life or death consequences for communities that are next to these forests and could become raging infernos in the next fire season. We can no longer dawdle on completing the thinning work that urgently needs to be performed on our Nation's forests. This work would also provide jobs thinning overstocked forests in rural communities, while reducing the threat of wildfires. Those wildfires are getting more and more costly to fight and consuming more and more of the budget of our public lands agencies. It simply doesn't make sense to not spend the money on preventing the fires and then turn around during the fire season and watch the millions of dollars flow freely while people's homes and livelihoods go up in smoke. Full funding of the HFRA would also allow for funding to communities so they can implement ``community wildfire protection plans'' developed in areas that are part of ``wildland urban interface'' and living on the edge of our public forests. I hope my colleagues will support this commonsense amendment and get the Healthy Forests Act back on track. Amendment No. 840, as Modified

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, If there is one environmental issue that divides us more than unites us, it's water, especially in the West. Farmers, ranchers, cities, towns, all compete for limited supplies. Salmon and other economically and culturally important fish depend on its flow. If it is not water quantity, then it is water quality that makes what gets passed on to the next water user the source of contention. The Clean Water Act has been enormously successful at making water users clean up the water that they use before it is discharged back into lakes, rivers, and streams, and, before it's used by the next person downstream. It has also helped ensure the survival of fish and wildlife. Over the past 8 years, the U.S. Supreme Court has rendered two major decisions that have restricted the scope of the Act. As it is now being interpreted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Corps of Engineers, the Act no longer prevents the discharge of pollution or fill into many wetlands or intermittent streams, lakes and ponds. By some estimates, more than half the streams in Oregon could be classified as intermittent streams and no longer protected. Another estimate concludes that over one million Oregonians get their drinking water from sources that would no longer be fully protected by the Clean Water Act. I think this is the wrong thing to do. Last year, I cosponsored S. 1870--the Clean Water Restoration Act-- legislation which was intended to return the protections of the Clean Water Act to the way they were before these two Supreme Court decisions occurred. No more, and no less. In my town hall meetings around Oregon, I have received questions and complaints about this legislation. The biggest concern that many people had was that this new bill was actually going to expand the reach of the Federal Government over water regulation in ways that would literally threaten the ability of farmers to farm and ranchers to ranch. People were also concerned that this legislation would not only regulate discharges into rivers and streams, but it would also regulate the quantity of water they use. I am no supporter of Federal water grabs. I would not have cosponsored this legislation in the last Congress if it would threaten Oregon farmers' ability to farm or our ranchers' ability to ranch. I would have opposed it. Ranchers and farmers and forest owners know how to be stewards of the land they ranch and farm and manage because their livelihoods depend on it, and if they are not careful about how they manage that land there will be nothing to pass on to the next generation. The same is true for how we must treat our rivers, streams and wetlands. So over the past few months, my staff and I have worked with Senator Feingold, the primary sponsor of the bill, to clarify that intent of this legislation is to simply restore the interpretation of the Clean Water Act to what it had been before these Supreme Court decisions. No more, and no less. Earlier this year, in response to my concerns about how the bill would impact rural Oregon, Senator Feingold reiterated in a letter to me his intent that the Clean Water Restoration Act not expand the scope of the law. Sen. Feingold also revised the text of the bill in a way that I believe makes it even clearer that the goal is not to expand the scope of the Clean Water Act beyond what it was in 2001 before the Supreme Court decisions. First of all, the bill again includes a savings clause that clearly continues the existing exemption for irrigation return flows from Clean Water Act regulation. It continues the exemption for dredged or fill materials from normal farming, silviculture and ranching activities. It continues the exemption for construction and maintenance of farm or stock ponds or irrigation ditches and drainage ditches. It continues the exemption for construction and maintenance of farm roads or forest roads. Second, the bill now contains a much more detailed set of findings that make it absolutely clear that the intent of Congress with enactment of the bill is to restore the regulatory system for the Clean Water Act to what it was before these two Supreme Court decisions. These findings also make it clear that the bill is not regulating ground water, only surface water, just as the Clean Water Act has always done. The findings make it clear that exclusions for prior converted cropland and manmade impoundments remain in place. They make it clear that the intent is to regulate water quality, not quantity or ownership. If more changes are needed to ensure that the bill does what Sen. Feingold and I say it does, than I am certainly open to making more changes to make sure the Senate gets this crucial issue right. Some people do not like the pre-2001 Clean Water Act regulatory system. Some believe that the Supreme Court did the right thing by removing many wetlands and intermittent streams and lakes from the protections of the Clean Water Act. I disagree. I think those protections are needed to protect our water supplies and our environment and wildlife habitat. Farmers and ranchers need those protections for their livelihoods. But I want to be absolutely clear, that I will not support expanding Federal authority in this area beyond what it was before 2001. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, this week the Senate focuses on the Federal budget and folks at home are going to hear a lot about reserve funds and reconciliation and a lot of other technical budget lingo. A reserve fund, for example, is not some kind of checking account where you can go get a bunch of money to spend on Government programs. It is more like a work plan that is used to structure how difficult policy judgments are made on important issues. Budget reconciliation is perhaps even more incomprehensible to folks. That is why I want to spend a few minutes this afternoon talking about what it means, particularly in terms of health care reform, which we all understand is a particularly pressing domestic concern. Budget reconciliation, strictly speaking, means reconciling Government policy with budget targets. If you were to pursue health care reform using budget reconciliation, you would, under the Senate rules, need only a majority vote here in the Senate as opposed to 60 votes, which is often needed in the Senate to cut off debate. So Senators now find themselves being buttonholed by reporters for something of a health care interrogation. The question invariably is, is a Senator in favor of using reconciliation for health care reform? The theory, I gather, is if a Senator is in favor of using budget reconciliation, the Senator is just in favor of bullying health care reform through the Senate with a narrow majority. And somehow, if a Senator is not for using reconciliation on health care reform, that Senator is not sympathetic to the cause of fixing the American health care system. It is my view that, like most of these kinds of issues, this is vastly oversimplifying the case. In my view, I have spent more than 5 years trying to make the issue of reconciliation on health care irrelevant. Senator Bennett and I, for example, have teamed up, now joined by 14 colleagues of both political parties, evenly divided, because we believe it is critically important to address this issue of health care reform in a bipartisan way. Every time we talk about this issue, we talk about our desire to work with the chairman of the Finance Committee. I see the ranking minority member on the floor, Senator Grassley. It is our desire to work with Chairman Baucus and Senator Grassley and Chairman Kennedy and our colleague from Wyoming, Senator Enzi. Everything we have worked toward in this area of health care reform has been pointed toward the goal of making reconciliation irrelevant because we wish to be part of an effort, working with Chairman Baucus and Senator Grassley and Chairman Kennedy and Senator Enzi, on a path to getting 68 to 70 votes here in the Senate so we can have an enduring and bipartisan coalition in place to fix American health care. I will tell you, on the basis of visiting most of our colleagues in their office to listen to them on the issue of health care reform, I think it is possible to find a path to 60 to 70 votes on this critical domestic question. I think there is a growing consensus here in the Senate that both political parties have been right on major concerns they have about American health care. I think there is a growing awareness that our party, the Democratic Party, has been right on the issue of ensuring that all Americans have good quality, affordable coverage. If you don't do that, what happens is the people who are uninsured shift their bills to the insured and they shift the most expensive bills. So you cannot fix this system unless you get all Americans good quality, affordable coverage. I think Republicans have had a very valid point with respect to giving flexibility to the private sector on the issue of health care. It is important, so as to not freeze innovation, to make sure there are not price controls, there are not global budgets so there are plenty of private sector choices, the way Members have with respect to this issue. It is something of a philosophical truce. Democrats have been right on the issue of making sure that you expand coverage to stop the cost shifting and deal with the question of holding down costs which is so important to American business and tough global financial markets. And Republicans have had a valid point with respect to the role of the private sector. I think there is a growing consensus about how, if you are going to contain costs in American health care, you have to go to areas that change the incentives, that drive the behavior in American health care. Right now, most individuals don't even have a choice with respect to their health care. If they are lucky enough to have employer-based coverage, they don't get a choice. So they are already in a position, in my view, that is not fair and certainly is not in sync in a way that works for the Members of the Senate. The distinguished President of the Senate and every other Member come here and get plenty of private sector choices for their health care, and I think there is a growing sense here in the Senate that those kinds of choices ought to be available to all Americans. Fourteen Senators are behind legislation that would do that. I point out the very fine white paper offered on American health care by the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee envisions Americans having more choices for their coverage, the way Members of Congress have. We are going to talk about a lot of issues this week with respect to the budget. You are going to hear a lot about reserve funds and reconciliation. I hope that as colleagues go through this topic and issues related to it, the rules with respect to how you are going to pay for American health care, I hope there will be a recognition that a lot of Senators wish to make the issue of reconciliation on health care irrelevant. Senator Bennett and I, for example, have received a report from the Congressional Budget Office--it is on my Web site--making it clear that our proposal is revenue neutral 2 years in and in the third year starts bending the cost curve downward. The way we get those savings, in most particulars, is through approaches that Chairman Baucus has advocated in the white paper I have mentioned here on the floor. There are plenty of opportunities for finding common ground on this budget, on bringing Democrats and Republicans together on key issues such as health care, on making the whole question of reconciliation go by the boards because Democrats and Republicans have come together. I want to close by commending Chairman Conrad for the approach he has taken with respect to the budget and for his desire, particularly, to work in the health care area of the budget in a bipartisan way. He worked with me, for example, on the issue of suggesting in the budget that periodic reports would have to be made with respect to health cost containment. That sends a strong message that the Senate is not going to wait around for 10 years or so to see if there are any savings. Chairman Conrad has added language to make it clear that on an ongoing basis there should be an effort to wring out savings from the existing $2.5 trillion being spent on American health care this year. Chairman Conrad does not want to sit around and wait for 10 or 12 or 15 years to see if anybody can save some money on American health care. He has picked up, as the Congressional Budget Office said in their report to Senator Bennett and me and our colleagues, there are savings that can be made over the next few years. There is enough money being spent on American health care today. It is not being spent in the right places. This year we will spend $2.5 trillion on health care. There are 305 million of us. If you divide 305 million into $2.5 trillion, you can go out and hire a doctor for every seven families in the United States. You could hire a doctor for every family in the State of Virginia or Oregon or elsewhere, pay the doctor $225,000 a year, and invariably when I bring this up to physicians, they say: Where can I go to get my 7 families? We spend enough on health care. We don't spend it in the right places. Chairman Conrad, by approaching the health care issue as he has in this budget, allows us to first focus on the savings that can be produced out of the existing $2.5 trillion. I commend Chairman Conrad for working with us in that fashion. I also commend the ranking minority member for his work on health care as well. He is a cosponsor of the Healthy Americans Act and has made it very clear that he wants to work with Chairman Baucus and Senator Grassley and Chairman Kennedy and Senator Enzi so that we bring the Senate together in a bipartisan fashion. There is much to work with here. As Senators do get buttonholed by reporters with respect to the issue of whether they are in favor of using reconciliation for health reform, I hope Senators will see that this is not a yes or no answer but that there is a large and bipartisan group of us who want to pass health care reform this year on President Obama's timetable--this year--but we want to do it by bringing Democrats and Republicans together and making the issue of reconciliation on the issue of health care reform irrelevant. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today, I am joining my colleagues from Maine, Connecticut, and Delaware, in introducing the Protect Children from Dangerous Lighters Act, a ban on novelty cigarette lighters. Novelty lighters, also known as toy-like lighters, are cigarette lighters that look like small children's toys or regular household items. In the hands of small children they can be very dangerous. Because they are so well disguised as toys, a child could easily pick one up to play with it without realizing that it could be very hazardous. The result of this mistake can be deadly: In Oregon, two boys were playing with a novelty lighter disguised as a toy dolphin and accidently started a serious fire, causing the death of one boy and the permanent brain damage of the other. Also in Oregon, a mother suffered third degree burns on her foot when her child was playing with a novelty lighter shaped like a small toy Christmas tree and set a bed on fire. Incidents like these happen all over the country. In Maine, a young boy took a miniature baseball bat off a shelf at a convenience store, accidentally ignited a flame and seared his eyebrow. In North Carolina, a boy sustained second degree burns after playing with a novelty lighter that looked like a toy cell phone. In one of the most tragic examples, a 2-year-old and a 15-month-old from Arkansas were killed in a fire they accidently started while playing with a novelty lighter shaped like a toy motorcycle. These injuries and deaths cry out to us to take action and remove these dangerous lighters from shelves everywhere. A ban on novelty lighters would require the Consumer Product Safety Commission to treat novelty lighters as a banned hazardous substance. That means novelty lighters will not be manufactured, imported, sold, or given away as promotional gifts anywhere in this country. This measure will keep novelty lighters out of the hands of children and prevent injuries like those that have already brought tragedy to too many families. A number of states and cities have taken it upon themselves to ban these dangerous lighters. Oregon and four other States have already enacted such bans, and thirteen other states are currently considering similar measures. It is clear that this is an important safety issue, and it is time for the Federal Government to pass this bill so that children in all states will be protected. A Federal ban on novelty lighters has widespread, nationwide support. Along with the Oregon Fire Marshal, the National Association of Fire Marshals supports a federal ban on these lighters and has been active in promoting public awareness on this issue. I want to thank the Congressional Fire Services Institute for their leadership in building support for this bill. The cigarette lighter industry, represented by the Lighter Association, is a partner in supporting a ban on novelty lighters. Finally, consumer groups, such as Safe Kids USA and others have endorsed this approach. Congress should act now to avoid the suffering caused by the senseless deaths and serious injuries that result from novelty lighters being mistaken for toys. Dangerous tools containing flammable fuel should not be dressed up in packages that are attractive to children; especially when young children do not have the capacity to differentiate these lighters from common toys. Please join me in banning dangerous novelty lighters by cosponsoring the Protect Children from Dangerous Lighters Act. 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 am joining my colleagues from Maine, Connecticut, and Delaware, in introducing the Protect Children from Dangerous Lighters Act, a ban on novelty cigarette lighters. Novelty lighters, also known as toy-like lighters, are cigarette lighters that look like small children's toys or regular household items. In the hands of small children they can be very dangerous. Because they are so well disguised as toys, a child could easily pick one up to play with it without realizing that it could be very hazardous. The result of this mistake can be deadly: In Oregon, two boys were playing with a novelty lighter disguised as a toy dolphin and accidently started a serious fire, causing the death of one boy and the permanent brain damage of the other. Also in Oregon, a mother suffered third degree burns on her foot when her child was playing with a novelty lighter shaped like a small toy Christmas tree and set a bed on fire. Incidents like these happen all over the country. In Maine, a young boy took a miniature baseball bat off a shelf at a convenience store, accidentally ignited a flame and seared his eyebrow. In North Carolina, a boy sustained second degree burns after playing with a novelty lighter that looked like a toy cell phone. In one of the most tragic examples, a 2-year-old and a 15-month-old from Arkansas were killed in a fire they accidently started while playing with a novelty lighter shaped like a toy motorcycle. These injuries and deaths cry out to us to take action and remove these dangerous lighters from shelves everywhere. A ban on novelty lighters would require the Consumer Product Safety Commission to treat novelty lighters as a banned hazardous substance. That means novelty lighters will not be manufactured, imported, sold, or given away as promotional gifts anywhere in this country. This measure will keep novelty lighters out of the hands of children and prevent injuries like those that have already brought tragedy to too many families. A number of states and cities have taken it upon themselves to ban these dangerous lighters. Oregon and four other States have already enacted such bans, and thirteen other states are currently considering similar measures. It is clear that this is an important safety issue, and it is time for the Federal Government to pass this bill so that children in all states will be protected. A Federal ban on novelty lighters has widespread, nationwide support. Along with the Oregon Fire Marshal, the National Association of Fire Marshals supports a federal ban on these lighters and has been active in promoting public awareness on this issue. I want to thank the Congressional Fire Services Institute for their leadership in building support for this bill. The cigarette lighter industry, represented by the Lighter Association, is a partner in supporting a ban on novelty lighters. Finally, consumer groups, such as Safe Kids USA and others have endorsed this approach. Congress should act now to avoid the suffering caused by the senseless deaths and serious injuries that result from novelty lighters being mistaken for toys. Dangerous tools containing flammable fuel should not be dressed up in packages that are attractive to children; especially when young children do not have the capacity to differentiate these lighters from common toys. Please join me in banning dangerous novelty lighters by cosponsoring the Protect Children from Dangerous Lighters Act. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. I thank the Senator. I appreciate the co-sponsorship of the Senator from New Hampshire. The only way to produce enduring health reform is to work in a bipartisan manner. Unlike past efforts, through the Healthy Americans Act, there is bi-partisan agreement on the principal issues. Republicans have moved to support covering everyone and Democrats have moved to support private choices.

Mr. WYDEN. I appreciate Senator Gregg's commitment to moving this process forward and the thoughtfulness in his suggestions. I am happy to work with you and all of our other co-sponsors to continue to make improvements to the bill. While there are challenges on the specifics, as Senator Gregg has said, there's a lot to work with. Senator Gregg and I agree on fiscal responsibility, prevention, wellness, chronic care management, modernizing the tax code, improving the quality of care, containing costs, personal responsibility, and the importance of covering everyone.

Mr. WYDEN. I think Senator Gregg's arguments on these points make a lot of sense. There's more to be said for reviewing alternative proposals such as a default enrollment policy instead of an individual mandate and the role of FDA labeling in comparative effectiveness. In light of the reports earlier this week that President Obama's health reform plan is estimated to cost more than $1.5 trillion over the next 10 years, it is better not to overpromise and undermine cost containment. It is important that the Congress find an appropriate benefit standard that will ensure quality coverage for all Americans that will not undermine our efforts to contain costs. I want to thank Senator Gregg for his thoughtful contributions and his willingness to work with me, Senator Bennett and our bipartisan group. It's our plan to work closely with our leaders--Chairman Baucus, Ranking Member Grassley, Chairman Kennedy, and Ranking Member Enzi--to end 60 years of gridlock.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak after Senator Cornyn.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I rise today to urge colleagues to support Chairman Bingaman on the upcoming amendments and to speak in favor of this extraordinarily important public lands package. This legislation would designate over 2 million acres of our great country as wilderness, surpassing the wilderness acreage designated by the last three sessions combined. The wilderness protected in this bill spans nine States, including my home State of Oregon. In addition, it adds close to 1,100 miles to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System in seven States--again including Oregon. It is going to allow for much needed upgrades to national trails, monuments, national conservation areas, oceans, the National Landscape Conservation System, forest landscape restoration, and water resources. Most significantly, the bills contained in this legislation would serve to protect our public lands from encroachment and preserve them for future generations to cherish and enjoy. The legislation includes provisions that are very near and dear to our country but especially to Oregonians. It includes the Lewis and Clark Mount Hood Wilderness Act of 2007, the Copper Salmon Wilderness Act, the Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument Voluntary and Equitable Grazing Conflict Resolution Act, the Oregon Badlands Wilderness Act of 2008, and the Spring Basin Wilderness Act of 2008. Today, I also wish to say that it is important to protect these special places because it will also be good for our economy to go forward with this legislation. This is legislation that is important to do whether we are in good times or in bad times--whether the economy is weak or strong. Because the nation's public lands of course, have enduring benefits, benefits we are going to pass on to our children long after these challenging days become a footnote in our country's history. So protecting public lands is a smart thing to do, and it is especially important given the significant economic benefits you will see generated by this legislation. And there are many that know, this is also a smart thing to be doing in a recession because our public lands--accessible to all for free or for a small fee--are where America's families turn for affordable recreation. And that recreation in turn, fuels the economy in many communities that rely on our nation's public lands. Appreciating the outdoors is not just a passion for Oregonians and the people of our country, it is also an economic engine, which is more urgently needed than ever in these challenging economic times. It is certainly an economic engine in my State, where the unemployment rate is over 10 percent. So passing this legislation isn't just the right thing to do morally--it is the right thing to do economically. In these times, folks have been losing their jobs. They do not know where their next job is going to come from. The fact is, there are significant economic benefits through recreation generated by this legislation. The Outdoor Industry Association, which closely tracks American's use of the outdoors and all the economic engine that encourages, has found recently that American's participation in outdoor activities increased in 2007 to 50 percent. They found that the national active outdoor recreation economy contributes $730 billion annually to our Nation's economy; it supports nearly 6.5 million jobs; it generates $49 billion in annual national tax revenue; and produces almost $300 billion annually in retail sales and services across the country. In Oregon, it contributes more than $5.8 billion annually to Oregon's economy. So outdoor recreation, what this legislation is going to promote, is a huge economic bonanza for our Nation. I can tell you, because colleagues have asked about Oregon, one of the national treasures this bill would protect, Mt. Hood, has had a banner skiing season. The Forest Service estimates visitation to the Mt. Hood National Forest is more than 2 million visitors a year, making it one of the most popular in our country. Some other areas that we protect in this bill, the Badlands and Spring Basin are near Central Oregon--a region that has a well-earned reputation as a hub for diverse outdoor recreation. They are also on Bureau of Land Management Lands, ``BLM.'' The BLM estimated that in Oregon alone, BLM lands had 8.3 million recreation visits. Those visits brought people, jobs and investment to the surrounding towns. The same is true in the other two areas this legislation would protect--the Cascade Siskiyou National Monument, where we would create a new 23,000 acre Soda Mountain Wilderness and Copper Salmon, where fishermen from all over the country journey to fish in one of the last intact watersheds on the southwestern Oregon Coast. A number of Senators have worked hard to make this legislation possible. I wish to thank them. And certainly Michele Miranda in our office, Mary Gautreaux, and my chief of staff, Josh Kardon, who has tried for years and years to bring together community leaders, all deserve special credit. We have gems in this legislation that are going to make for recreational industry meccas. I hope that all colleagues will support Chairman Bingaman when the amendments come up and ultimately support this legislation. We ought to pass this legislation. It is time to do it for millions of Americans and for future generations enjoying these great treasures, and we ought to do it because this legislation will also help stoke the economic engine for our country. I know colleagues are waiting too. I wish to thank Chairman Bingaman for this opportunity to speak. I urge all colleagues to support Chairman Bingaman with respect to these amendments and get this bill passed in the Senate today.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join today with my colleague from Maine, Senator Snowe, to introduce the Nanotechnology Innovation and Prize Competition Act of 2009. As Co-Chair of the Congressional Nanotechnology Caucus, and former Chair of the Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Innovation, I have worked long and hard to advance U.S. competitiveness in nanotechnology. Nanotech is a rapidly developing field that offers a wide range of benefits to the country. It can create jobs, expand the economy, and strengthen America's position as a global leader in technological innovation. At this time, when older industries are faltering and the economy is struggling, Congress must act to open new doors, help industry to move into new fields, and work to unlock new manufacturing potential. Nanotechnology is redefining the global economy and delivering revolutionary change through an amazing array of technological innovations. There is virtually no industry that will not be improved by the advances that are possible with nanotechnology. But to unlock the full benefits of nanotechnology's capabilities, the Federal Government must do more to partner with our nation's innovative entrepreneurs, engineers, and scientists. To that end, I am proposing, along with Senator Snowe, legislation that will create an X-Prize competition in nanotechnology. Many people have heard of the X-Prize, a recent and high-profile example of a prize competition like the one Sen. Snowe and I are proposing today. The X-Prize was established in 1996 and set up a $10 million prize fund for the first team who could make civilian space flight a reality. The award was successfully claimed just eight years later. But that was not the only achievement the X-Prize accomplished. During that span of time, the $10 million prize stimulated over $100 million in research and development by the competitors. Successful prize competitions are not limited to the X-Prize. We have seen the value of these kinds of competitions before. One of the most famous was the Orteig prize, which was to be awarded to the first person to fly non-stop across the Atlantic Ocean. Claimed, of course, by Charles Lindbergh in 1927, the Orteig prize stimulated private investment 16 times greater than the amount of the prize. Imagine what kind of explosion in investment and innovation we could achieve in nanotechnology with the competition we're proposing today. By establishing this nanotechnology prize competition, the Federal Government will promote public-private cooperation to spur investment in key areas and help solve critical problems. The very first prize competition was, in fact, a Government sponsored competition that produced a revolutionary technological breakthrough. In 1714, the British Parliament established a prize for determining a ship's longitude at sea. At the time, the inability to accurately determine longitude was causing many ships to become lost. Solving this critical problem by creating a competition to find the answer paved the way to British naval superiority. Today, other Government sponsored prize competitions are driving technological breakthroughs and successes. For example, the DARPA Grand Challenge and Urban Challenge have stimulated tremendous advances in remotely-controlled vehicle technology. The Nanotechnology Innovation and Prize Competition Act is a vital tool to help ensure that public and private resources will be utilized in a coordinated way and will be devoted to solving the complex and pressing problems that America faces today. This bill will also spur technological investment and create jobs here at home. Through this prize competition, the government will be able to leverage its resources and focus the intellectual and economic capacity of our nation's best and brightest entrepreneurs on finding the big answers we need in the smallest of technologies--nanotechnology. The Nanotechnology Innovation and Prize Competition Act creates four priority areas for the establishment of prize competitions: green nanotechnology, alternative energy applications, improvements in human health, and the commercialization of consumer products. In each of these areas, nanotechnology holds the promise of tremendous breakthroughs if the necessary resources are devoted. This competition will make sure we get started as soon as possible on finding those breakthroughs. We all know that the competitive spirit is one of the strengths of our country. This bill will ignite that spirit in nanotech. Again, I thank my colleague from Maine for her help and cooperation in introducing this bill. I also want to thank the Woodrow Wilson Center and the X-PRIZE Foundation for their work in helping to develop this bill. I look forward to working with the Commerce Committee, other members of the Congressional Nanotechnology Caucus, the Obama Administration, and the entire nanotech community to reauthorize the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act in the 111th Congress. I urge all my colleagues to support innovation and promote entrepreneurial competition by cosponsoring this legislation. Mr. President, 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 Maine, Senator Snowe, to introduce the Nanotechnology Innovation and Prize Competition Act of 2009. As Co-Chair of the Congressional Nanotechnology Caucus, and former Chair of the Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Innovation, I have worked long and hard to advance U.S. competitiveness in nanotechnology. Nanotech is a rapidly developing field that offers a wide range of benefits to the country. It can create jobs, expand the economy, and strengthen America's position as a global leader in technological innovation. At this time, when older industries are faltering and the economy is struggling, Congress must act to open new doors, help industry to move into new fields, and work to unlock new manufacturing potential. Nanotechnology is redefining the global economy and delivering revolutionary change through an amazing array of technological innovations. There is virtually no industry that will not be improved by the advances that are possible with nanotechnology. But to unlock the full benefits of nanotechnology's capabilities, the Federal Government must do more to partner with our nation's innovative entrepreneurs, engineers, and scientists. To that end, I am proposing, along with Senator Snowe, legislation that will create an X-Prize competition in nanotechnology. Many people have heard of the X-Prize, a recent and high-profile example of a prize competition like the one Sen. Snowe and I are proposing today. The X-Prize was established in 1996 and set up a $10 million prize fund for the first team who could make civilian space flight a reality. The award was successfully claimed just eight years later. But that was not the only achievement the X-Prize accomplished. During that span of time, the $10 million prize stimulated over $100 million in research and development by the competitors. Successful prize competitions are not limited to the X-Prize. We have seen the value of these kinds of competitions before. One of the most famous was the Orteig prize, which was to be awarded to the first person to fly non-stop across the Atlantic Ocean. Claimed, of course, by Charles Lindbergh in 1927, the Orteig prize stimulated private investment 16 times greater than the amount of the prize. Imagine what kind of explosion in investment and innovation we could achieve in nanotechnology with the competition we're proposing today. By establishing this nanotechnology prize competition, the Federal Government will promote public-private cooperation to spur investment in key areas and help solve critical problems. The very first prize competition was, in fact, a Government sponsored competition that produced a revolutionary technological breakthrough. In 1714, the British Parliament established a prize for determining a ship's longitude at sea. At the time, the inability to accurately determine longitude was causing many ships to become lost. Solving this critical problem by creating a competition to find the answer paved the way to British naval superiority. Today, other Government sponsored prize competitions are driving technological breakthroughs and successes. For example, the DARPA Grand Challenge and Urban Challenge have stimulated tremendous advances in remotely-controlled vehicle technology. The Nanotechnology Innovation and Prize Competition Act is a vital tool to help ensure that public and private resources will be utilized in a coordinated way and will be devoted to solving the complex and pressing problems that America faces today. This bill will also spur technological investment and create jobs here at home. Through this prize competition, the government will be able to leverage its resources and focus the intellectual and economic capacity of our nation's best and brightest entrepreneurs on finding the big answers we need in the smallest of technologies--nanotechnology. The Nanotechnology Innovation and Prize Competition Act creates four priority areas for the establishment of prize competitions: green nanotechnology, alternative energy applications, improvements in human health, and the commercialization of consumer products. In each of these areas, nanotechnology holds the promise of tremendous breakthroughs if the necessary resources are devoted. This competition will make sure we get started as soon as possible on finding those breakthroughs. We all know that the competitive spirit is one of the strengths of our country. This bill will ignite that spirit in nanotech. Again, I thank my colleague from Maine for her help and cooperation in introducing this bill. I also want to thank the Woodrow Wilson Center and the X-PRIZE Foundation for their work in helping to develop this bill. I look forward to working with the Commerce Committee, other members of the Congressional Nanotechnology Caucus, the Obama Administration, and the entire nanotech community to reauthorize the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act in the 111th Congress. I urge all my colleagues to support innovation and promote entrepreneurial competition by cosponsoring this legislation. 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 today to speak in support of a resolution that I am offering with my colleagues, Senators Brownback, Menendez, Snowe, and Whitehouse. This resolution condemns the Iranian government's persecution of its own Baha'i community and urges the Obama administration to speak out strongly against this continued injustice. The Baha'i Faith, the world's youngest independent monotheistic religion, was founded in Iran in 1844. Today, it is practiced by more than 5 million people across the planet, from Bangalore, India to Beaverton, Oregon. Roughly 300,000 of these adherents still live in Iran. Although Baha'i teachings emphasize equality, unity, and peace, Iranian authorities have viewed the religion as an apostasy and have treated it as a threat since the beginning. The current Islamic Republic has been particularly hostile to Baha'i practitioners since its establishment in 1979. In 1983, Iran's government formally banned all Baha'i religious institutions and criminalized membership in them and service to them. The regime has officially recognized Christians, Jews, and Zoroastrians as religious minorities. It refuses to extend this same status to the Baha'is, even though they make up Iran's largest religious minority. According to the State Department's 2008 International Religious Freedom Report, the regime continues to create ``a threatening atmosphere for nearly all non-Shi'a religious groups, most notably for Baha'is.'' The government routinely seizes personal property from members of the Baha'i community, denies access to education and employment opportunities, and detains Baha'is based solely on their religious beliefs. Last year, the Iranian regime imprisoned seven leaders of the Baha'i community. In February 2009, Tehran's deputy prosecutor announced that these seven leaders would be tried on charges of ``espionage for Israel, insulting religious sanctities, and propaganda against the Islamic Republic.'' Not surprisingly, the regime provided no evidence to support these preposterous accusations and has refused to allow a lawyer for the seven to even meet with them. These actions are clear and unambiguous violations of Iran's international commitments under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Some in the international community have already condemned this mockery of justice, and rightly so. My colleagues and I believe the time has now come to add the United States Senate to this growing chorus of voices. Our resolution is simple and straightforward. It denounces the Iranian government's persecution of the Baha'is and calls on the regime to immediately release all prisoners held for their religious beliefs, including the seven Baha'i leaders. It further calls on President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to work with the international community in condemning the Iranian regime for its repeated human rights violations. I hope that colleagues will join me and Senators Brownback, Menendez, Snowe, and Whitehouse in supporting this commonsense resolution.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, there is an old saying about ``not seeing the forest for the trees'' that applies to the current myopic policies on biomass from Federal lands. Right now, instead of helping to provide part of the solution to our Nation's dependence on foreign oil, biomass from Federal lands allowed to build up in the woods or worse become fuel for catastrophic fires. Instead of being part of the solution for energy independence, it is creating a problem for forest management and communities that border on Federal forests. I rise today to introduce a bill that would allow woody debris and plant material--or ``biomass''--from Federal lands to become part of the solution to America's energy problems and to create new economic opportunities to help sustain our rural communities. This legislation would amend the Clean Air Act to modify the definition of the term ``renewable biomass'' contained in the Federal Renewable Fuel Standard so that biomass from Federal lands is eligible as a fuel source under this standard. Today, biomass from Federal lands cannot be counted as a renewable transportation fuel. The change I am proposing would help tackle a number of critical problems--expanding the universe of biomass that can be used for fuel, helping pay for programs to reduce dangerous levels of dead and dying trees that fuel wildfires, thinning unhealthy, second growth forests, providing low-carbon fuels to address climate change, and create jobs in increasingly difficult economic times. The reason we need this legislation goes back to the 2007 energy bill--the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. In that legislation, the Congress dramatically expanded the Federal mandate for the use of renewable biofuels, such as ethanol from corn and cellulose, and biodiesel. Unfortunately, this legislation included a definition of renewable biomass that is now part of the Clean Air Act which excluded slash and thinning byproducts from Federal lands--all Federal lands. This occurred despite the bipartisan work we had undertaken here in the Senate and in the Energy and Natural Resources Committee to come up with a more commonsense definition. The result is that biomass from millions of acres of Federal lands are arbitrarily excluded from serving as feedstock for the very renewable biofuels that the mandate requires. Changing the definition of ``renewable biomass'' for the renewable fuels standard is very important to states like Oregon, where the Federal Government owns much of the land and where our forests are choked and overstocked. Critical work needs to take place in these forests and utilizing the excess biomass--small diameter trees, limbs and debris--for energy will help us get that work accomplished while getting us the added benefit of green energy. These byproducts are often a critical energy source for rural Americans, who use them in environmentally-friendly wood pellet stoves. But more importantly, they are part of the future of clean, renewable fuels--as further development of cellulosic ethanol will allow us to use these waste materials reclaimed literally from the forest and mill floors. Conversely, by excluding biomass from Federal lands, the existing mandate places ever more weight on the use of biomass from other sources, including the use of food-based corn and grains and private forests. My bill seeks to utilize biomass from Federal lands in an environmentally responsible way. It will protect those natural resources that need to be protected, while allowing renewable biomass from Federal lands to contribute to our Nation's energy mix. First, my bill would allow biomass from National Forests and Bureau of Land Management forests to qualify as renewable biomass under the Federal Renewable Fuels Standard, but it would continue to exclude old growth and biomass from National Parks, Wilderness Areas and other environmentally protected areas. Second, the bill would require Federal land managers to ensure that the quantities of biomass harvested even from these eligible National Forest and BLM lands are sustainable. While biomass holds great potential as a clean source of energy, I want to ensure that it gets harvested at levels that are truly sustainable and that biofuels and bioenergy projects dependent on renewable biomass are sized appropriately so that we protect our forests and natural resources and ensure that biofuels production facilities will not wither and die because of inadequate feedstock supplies. I want to be clear that my legislation only addresses the question of how the Renewable Fuel Standard treats biomass from Federal lands. It does not and it is not intended to reopen or overhaul the Renewable Fuels Standard as a whole. It is simply a targeted fix for our Federal public lands. As we move forward with new energy legislation and work on developing additional green energy solutions, I want to ensure that renewable biomass is genuinely one of those solutions, including biomass from Federal lands. It is my hope that beyond fixing the definition in the Clean Air Act for the Renewable Fuels Standard, Congress will include a comparable definition in legislation addressing climate change and renewable electricity production requirements. I look forward to working with my colleagues here in the Senate and in the House of Representatives to advance a biomass definition that balances sound energy policy with practical and sensible use of our forests. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, there is an old saying about ``not seeing the forest for the trees'' that applies to the current myopic policies on biomass from Federal lands. Right now, instead of helping to provide part of the solution to our Nation's dependence on foreign oil, biomass from Federal lands allowed to build up in the woods or worse become fuel for catastrophic fires. Instead of being part of the solution for energy independence, it is creating a problem for forest management and communities that border on Federal forests. I rise today to introduce a bill that would allow woody debris and plant material--or ``biomass''--from Federal lands to become part of the solution to America's energy problems and to create new economic opportunities to help sustain our rural communities. This legislation would amend the Clean Air Act to modify the definition of the term ``renewable biomass'' contained in the Federal Renewable Fuel Standard so that biomass from Federal lands is eligible as a fuel source under this standard. Today, biomass from Federal lands cannot be counted as a renewable transportation fuel. The change I am proposing would help tackle a number of critical problems--expanding the universe of biomass that can be used for fuel, helping pay for programs to reduce dangerous levels of dead and dying trees that fuel wildfires, thinning unhealthy, second growth forests, providing low-carbon fuels to address climate change, and create jobs in increasingly difficult economic times. The reason we need this legislation goes back to the 2007 energy bill--the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. In that legislation, the Congress dramatically expanded the Federal mandate for the use of renewable biofuels, such as ethanol from corn and cellulose, and biodiesel. Unfortunately, this legislation included a definition of renewable biomass that is now part of the Clean Air Act which excluded slash and thinning byproducts from Federal lands--all Federal lands. This occurred despite the bipartisan work we had undertaken here in the Senate and in the Energy and Natural Resources Committee to come up with a more commonsense definition. The result is that biomass from millions of acres of Federal lands are arbitrarily excluded from serving as feedstock for the very renewable biofuels that the mandate requires. Changing the definition of ``renewable biomass'' for the renewable fuels standard is very important to states like Oregon, where the Federal Government owns much of the land and where our forests are choked and overstocked. Critical work needs to take place in these forests and utilizing the excess biomass--small diameter trees, limbs and debris--for energy will help us get that work accomplished while getting us the added benefit of green energy. These byproducts are often a critical energy source for rural Americans, who use them in environmentally-friendly wood pellet stoves. But more importantly, they are part of the future of clean, renewable fuels--as further development of cellulosic ethanol will allow us to use these waste materials reclaimed literally from the forest and mill floors. Conversely, by excluding biomass from Federal lands, the existing mandate places ever more weight on the use of biomass from other sources, including the use of food-based corn and grains and private forests. My bill seeks to utilize biomass from Federal lands in an environmentally responsible way. It will protect those natural resources that need to be protected, while allowing renewable biomass from Federal lands to contribute to our Nation's energy mix. First, my bill would allow biomass from National Forests and Bureau of Land Management forests to qualify as renewable biomass under the Federal Renewable Fuels Standard, but it would continue to exclude old growth and biomass from National Parks, Wilderness Areas and other environmentally protected areas. Second, the bill would require Federal land managers to ensure that the quantities of biomass harvested even from these eligible National Forest and BLM lands are sustainable. While biomass holds great potential as a clean source of energy, I want to ensure that it gets harvested at levels that are truly sustainable and that biofuels and bioenergy projects dependent on renewable biomass are sized appropriately so that we protect our forests and natural resources and ensure that biofuels production facilities will not wither and die because of inadequate feedstock supplies. I want to be clear that my legislation only addresses the question of how the Renewable Fuel Standard treats biomass from Federal lands. It does not and it is not intended to reopen or overhaul the Renewable Fuels Standard as a whole. It is simply a targeted fix for our Federal public lands. As we move forward with new energy legislation and work on developing additional green energy solutions, I want to ensure that renewable biomass is genuinely one of those solutions, including biomass from Federal lands. It is my hope that beyond fixing the definition in the Clean Air Act for the Renewable Fuels Standard, Congress will include a comparable definition in legislation addressing climate change and renewable electricity production requirements. I look forward to working with my colleagues here in the Senate and in the House of Representatives to advance a biomass definition that balances sound energy policy with practical and sensible use of our forests. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I thank the distinguished chairman of the committee for the chance to speak at this time. I am going to talk a bit about the cause of health care reform, and I know the chairman has been a leader in this area lo these many years. For some time, the planets have started to align for the cause of health reform, and today the President put in place some stars in Kathleen Sebelius and Nancy-Ann DeParle for key assignments in this health reform effort. Both of them bring extraordinary qualifications to their positions. Kathleen Sebelius is a renowned expert on the cause of insurance reform. This is going to be especially important because the insurance model today is fundamentally flawed. It is all about cherry-picking-- taking healthy people and sending sick people over to government programs more fragile than they are. Under Kathleen Sebelius, I am of the view we will reinvent that insurance system. Private insurers will compete on the basis of price, benefit, and quality. I believe we will have bipartisan support for that effort. The President has talked about it. Chairman Baucus has it in his white paper. Chairman Kennedy has long advocated this very different model of private insurance. I am pleased to say in our bipartisan Healthy Americans Act, which Senator Bennett and I have sponsored, we include it as well. With Kathleen Sebelius and her expertise in the insurance field, we will be in a position to get it done and get it done with bipartisan support. Nancy-Ann DeParle brings the same qualifications to the task of fixing health care. She is an expert in health care numbers. She was involved what was then the Health Care Finance Administration. But what I like the most about Nancy-Ann DeParle is that she has always understood that enduring solutions to big questions--such as fixing health care--are going to require that we bring together bipartisan support for those efforts. To his credit, the President has emphasized how important it is to have bipartisan support for this challenge. I believe at this point Democrats and Republicans can come together and end the gridlock over health care reform. I think we are now seeing emerge a bipartisan consensus that each party has been right on fundamentals with respect to health care. Democrats have been right about the proposition that you cannot fix the system without covering everybody. If you don't cover everybody, the people who are uninsured shift their bills to the insured, and they shift the most expensive bills. So my view is my party has been right on the question of coverage, and it is time to get all Americans good quality, affordable health care. I also believe Republicans have contributed significantly because we do need a strong private sector, one that encourages innovation, one that steers clear of price controls and a one-size-fits-all Federal solution. So I think there is opportunity now for private sector choices as well as expanding coverage. Again, President Obama has included that kind of thinking, Chairman Baucus has, Chairman Kennedy has, and we have it in the Healthy Americans Act as well. Some are saying--and we have heard this repeatedly in recent weeks-- that our country, with our fragile economy, can't afford health care reform. I am of the view that our economy can't afford the status quo. If you think about what is going on in North Carolina, the reason people's take-home pay doesn't go up is because it is all going to health care. The fact is that fixing the economy and fixing health care are two sides of the same coin. The Obama administration--particularly Peter Orszag, the Budget Director--has long recognized this. The President was right to say that after 60 years of talking about health care, he didn't want to wait until year 61 to get something done; he wanted to do it this year. Today, by appointing Kathleen Sebelius and Nancy-Ann DeParle, he got these efforts off to a very strong start. This Thursday we will have a health care summit. Proponents, opponents, and those of differing views will be around the table. Again, the President has made the right call by inviting some who haven't been advocates for health care reform in the past. But I think we are seeing a dramatic departure from a lot of the positions of the past, and that is what is going to make Thursday's session very exciting and I believe very productive. For example, in 1993 and 1994, when our country debated health care reform under the Clinton plan, the business community said, We can't afford to fix health care. Now the business community--businesses small and large and of all philosophies--are saying, We can't afford the status quo. Chairman Baucus and Chairman Kennedy and their ranking minority members, Chuck Grassley and Mike Enzi, have a long record of being able to work in a bipartisan fashion to build on those new sentiments coming from the business community. I believe Senator Bennett and I, with the 13 Senators who are part of the Healthy Americans Act coalition, can bring to the President, can bring to our chairs and ranking minority members, some ideas that can pick up bipartisan support. They know we are anxious to work with them and to work with them quickly. To stick to the President's timetable is going to require that kind of bipartisan goodwill, and I believe it is now there. I believe that the health care challenge in this country, with exploding costs and demographics that are relentless, requires a lot of the old thinking be set aside. I believe it is doable. In the course of the last 2 years, I have had a chance to visit more than 80 of our colleagues in their offices, to listen to them, to get their thoughts on what needs to be done in health care, and to a person, I found a desire to act and to act now. I think, as the President knows, you can't have a town meeting-- whether it is North Carolina or Oregon, or anywhere else in this country--without health care dominating the discussion. So this Thursday provides an opportunity to bring people together. We will have the nominations of Kathleen Sebelius and Nancy-Ann DeParle going forward. I am certain they are going to be approved with very substantial bipartisan support, and then we will be down to the task of writing legislation. On the key issues there is agreement among reformers. Clearly, you have to cover everybody to stop cost shifting. You have to change the insurance model so that instead of spending time scouring out the bad risks and taking only healthy people, there is a different model of private insurance where plans compete on the basis of price, benefit and quality. We are going to come together and make sure we are purchasing value for our health care dollar. Dr. Orszag has pointed out on many occasions that something like 30 percent of the health care dollar goes for services of little or no value. That is these services don't help patients get healthier. Chairman Baucus and Chairman Kennedy have some good ideas for changing that as well. I think, finally, there will be a very sharp new focus on prevention and wellness. When Senator Bennett and I were talking about the Healthy Americans Act, we thought there were a number of key areas we felt strongly about. But what we felt most strongly about was getting a new emphasis on prevention and wellness. That is why we called it the Healthy Americans Act--because to a great extent, Madam President, we don't have health care at all in this country. We have sick care. Medicare Part A, the biggest health care program in our country, will pay thousands of dollars for senior citizens' hospital bills, and Medicare Part B, on the other hand, will not do anything to award prevention and to keep people healthy. So in the Healthy Americans Act we say seniors who make efforts to lower their blood pressure or lower their cholesterol will get lower Part B premiums. The fact is, the entire health system does little to encourage prevention. For example, with the typical workers changing their jobs every few years--right now the workers, by the time they are 40, change their jobs 11 times--there is not a great incentive for private insurers to invest in prevention. So what the President seeks to do-- and Chairman Baucus, Chairman Kennedy, Senator Bennett, myself, distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee who is part of our legislation--we are saying let's make health coverage portable so you can take it from place to place as you change your job, and in the future private insurance companies will have an incentive to invest in wellness and prevention and good health care because people will be staying with them. In today's system, when workers jump from one job to another every year or year and a half there is no incentive for the insurance company to invest in your health. Madam President, I said the planet was aligning for the cause of health reform. With the appointment of two true stars, Kathleen Sebelius and Nancy-Ann DeParle, the President took another significant step toward achieving our goal today. I believe, after 60 years of bickering about this subject--it literally goes back to the 81st Congress with Harry Truman--there is new momentum for an enduring fix for the challenges of American health care. To make an enduring solution to those challenges requires that Democrats and Republicans come together. I think that is going to be possible with both parties having the ability to secure major objectives they have worked for in the past. With Thursday's summit coming up, I think the American people will see that now the hard work is going to go forward. This time, after years and years of polarizing debates, there is going to be an opportunity to come together. I believe the Congress, with the leadership of President Obama, is going to take that opportunity. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to reintroduce the Withdraw Energy Addicting New Subsidies Act. I first introduced this legislation in the 109th Congress to repeal what I believed to be a back-door subsidy to the oil and gas industry at a time when the oil and gas industry didn't need any more subsidies. This hidden subsidy was included in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. And what it does is to directly transfer $50 million dollars a year of oil and gas royalties, which would otherwise go the Federal Treasury, into a special program to research on advanced, ultra-deep drilling technology for the oil and gas industry. This transfer isn't a one-time transfer, it's an annual transfer that continues every year through the year 2017, at a cost of $250 million over five years. There are plenty of industries in this country that are hurting, but the oil and gas industry is not one of them. It's time, as President Obama has said, to end Federal programs that we don't really need. And this is one of them. I applaud the decision by the President to propose the repeal of the ultra-deepwater drilling program in the budget he announced today. It's a decision that's long overdue. That's why I am reintroducing this bill--the WEANS Act. I urge my colleagues in joining me in ending this unneeded subsidy by supporting the WEANS Act. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to reintroduce the Withdraw Energy Addicting New Subsidies Act. I first introduced this legislation in the 109th Congress to repeal what I believed to be a back-door subsidy to the oil and gas industry at a time when the oil and gas industry didn't need any more subsidies. This hidden subsidy was included in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. And what it does is to directly transfer $50 million dollars a year of oil and gas royalties, which would otherwise go the Federal Treasury, into a special program to research on advanced, ultra-deep drilling technology for the oil and gas industry. This transfer isn't a one-time transfer, it's an annual transfer that continues every year through the year 2017, at a cost of $250 million over five years. There are plenty of industries in this country that are hurting, but the oil and gas industry is not one of them. It's time, as President Obama has said, to end Federal programs that we don't really need. And this is one of them. I applaud the decision by the President to propose the repeal of the ultra-deepwater drilling program in the budget he announced today. It's a decision that's long overdue. That's why I am reintroducing this bill--the WEANS Act. I urge my colleagues in joining me in ending this unneeded subsidy by supporting the WEANS Act. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, we rise to offer this resolution in recognition of a historic day for my STATE and the people of Oregon. On February 14, 1859, 150 years ago, President James Buchanan signed the bill that admitted Oregon as the 33rd STATE to join this great union. Mr. President, 150 years ago, there were barely 50,000 people living in Oregon. Pictures from that era show hearty men and women standing in mud streets in front of clapboard buildings. That would soon change as thousands migrated across the continent on the Oregon Trail, a trek that would become synonymous with the American spirit. Those who made that arduous journey were not nomads aimlessly wandering the land looking for a quick buck. They came with a purpose: to work hard and to make a new start in a new land. And what a new land it was. Oregon was graced by providence with endless forests, rivers teeming with fish, fertile valleys, majestic mountains, a dramatic coast line, and rugged high deserts. Today, more than 3,500,000 people live in Oregon, which continues to boast some of the NATION's most unique and beautiful forests, farm lands, mountains, coast line and high deserts. They still beckon to those who seek a better life, much in the same way as those who endured the Oregon Trail. In some parts of Oregon the tracks made by the pioneers covered wagons are still visible, forever etched in the landscape. Oregon has its geographic icons such as the Columbia River, Crater Lake, and Mount Hood. It has its great names: Wayne Morse, Mark Hatfield, Tom McCall. It has been a national leader with innovations such as an initiative stem that dates back to the turn of the last century, a beach bill, a bottle bill and a statewide land use planning process to protect those things that brought people to Oregon in the first place. Over its 150-year history, Oregon has earned a reputation as a progressive, forward thinking STATE. We Oregonians are not without our quirks, but we embrace them with enthusiasm and wear them with pride. We have watched our economy change from one based on forestry and wood products to one that has become a leader in high-tech innovation, from wood chips to silicon chips. Millions of people around the world know of Oregon because of companies like Nike, Intel, and Columbia Sportswear that call Oregon home. As our STATE embarks on another 150 years, Oregon is already working to cultivate new economies grounded in alternative energy, green buildings, and clean technology. Wind, geothermal, and wave energy are either already being generated in Oregon or will be soon. The solar energy industry has recognized the quality of Oregon's workforce and is moving to our STATE in a big way. But as Oregon embraces the new economy and new technology, we have not forgotten those places for which we have become famous. With the help of this body, thousands of acres of Oregon's most beautiful, rugged, and pristine areas are destined for permanent protection. The anticipated additions of the Lewis and Clark Mount Hood Wilderness, the Copper Salmon Wilderness, the Badlands Wilderness, the Spring Basin Wilderness, and the Cascade Siskiyou National Monument guarantee future generations of Americans will see firsthand why Oregon was the NATION's first destination resort. We are all aware that these are serious times that require our full and undivided attention if we are going to restore America's greatness as an economic power and rebuild our reputation with the rest of the world. But at the same time, I believe there is value at looking back to celebrate a place which has done so much to help make this country great. Please join me at wishing the great STATE of Oregon a happy birthday and many more to come.