Ron Wyden

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I would close this discussion with Senator Bennett by saying that I think, having listened to his comments with respect to Social Security and knowing of our work together on health care, if anything, we have seen during this last couple of weeks of discussion about the economic stimulus how important it is going to be to bring the Senate together in the months ahead in a bipartisan way to tackle these most significant economic questions. You are not going to fix Social Security and you are not going to fix health care on a narrowly partisan approach. The Senator has made that clear with the ideas he has advanced on Social Security. It is a pleasure to team up with the Senator on health care. I look forward to joining with him in following up on the Social Security proposal he has made this afternoon. I thank him for his work.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, before he leaves the floor, I simply want to say to Senator Bennett, my partner lo these many years in the bipartisan effort to fix health care, how much I appreciate his leadership on the Social Security issue. I think everybody understands what the demographics are all about. In fact, the demographics on Social Security are very similar to the demographics on health care. Yet Senator Bennett has been out there prosecuting the case of trying to bring the Senate together for a bipartisan approach on Social Security, just as we have sought to do on health care. I want to let the Senator from Utah know how much I am looking forward to working with him on this issue. I think he knows there are a number of us who believe this is going to take a bipartisan effort. Like most of the big issues, if you are going to get an enduring reform, bring the country together, you have to take the pursuit that Senator Bennett has followed, which is to do your homework and get the financial underpinnings in place. I commend my colleague for all his effort to zero the attention of the Senate in on the Social Security question. I am looking forward to working with him in partnership on this issue as well as continuing our health care effort.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I would close this discussion with Senator Bennett by saying that I think, having listened to his comments with respect to Social Security and knowing of our work together on health care, if anything, we have seen during this last couple of weeks of discussion about the economic stimulus how important it is going to be to bring the Senate together in the months ahead in a bipartisan way to tackle these most significant economic questions. You are not going to fix Social Security and you are not going to fix health care on a narrowly partisan approach. The Senator has made that clear with the ideas he has advanced on Social Security. It is a pleasure to team up with the Senator on health care. I look forward to joining with him in following up on the Social Security proposal he has made this afternoon. I thank him for his work.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, before he leaves the floor, I simply want to say to Senator Bennett, my partner lo these many years in the bipartisan effort to fix health care, how much I appreciate his leadership on the Social Security issue. I think everybody understands what the demographics are all about. In fact, the demographics on Social Security are very similar to the demographics on health care. Yet Senator Bennett has been out there prosecuting the case of trying to bring the Senate together for a bipartisan approach on Social Security, just as we have sought to do on health care. I want to let the Senator from Utah know how much I am looking forward to working with him on this issue. I think he knows there are a number of us who believe this is going to take a bipartisan effort. Like most of the big issues, if you are going to get an enduring reform, bring the country together, you have to take the pursuit that Senator Bennett has followed, which is to do your homework and get the financial underpinnings in place. I commend my colleague for all his effort to zero the attention of the Senate in on the Social Security question. I am looking forward to working with him in partnership on this issue as well as continuing our health care effort.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, in the course of debating the economic stimulus legislation, every Senator I have talked to has been interested in trying to find savings to keep down the cost of the economic stimulus bill. I have come to the floor this afternoon because it appears that when the Senate debates the final stimulus legislation, it is not going to include a bipartisan provision to protect taxpayers, a bipartisan provision which would require that Wall Street companies that recently paid excessive bonuses be required to pay those bonuses back to the taxpayers. Taxpayers in this country were horrified several weeks ago to learn about the fact that recently Wall Street companies that had received TARP financing--TARP, of course, being the Troubled Asset Relief Program--had just paid $18 billion in bonuses. Once that news became public, everybody in Government spoke out against the bonuses. Everybody lined up in front of the television cameras to say the bonuses were wrong. Everybody said that it was outrageous and unacceptable for these Wall Street bonuses to have been paid when these institutions were receiving billions and billions of dollars of taxpayer money. After the news, three of us on the Senate Finance Committee--a bipartisan group--said we were going to do more than say the bonuses were wrong; we were going to take steps to make sure the bonuses were actually paid back. So we came together and put forward a bipartisan proposal. We collaborated with law professors across the country and had the Joint Committee on Taxation, under the able leadership of Edward Kleinbard, review the financial underpinnings of the proposal, and they found that our modest approach that would allow taxpayers to be paid back the excessive amount of the cash bonuses would generate $3.2 billion for American taxpayers--just a fraction of what had been paid out. We felt it was a modest proposal. We felt it was a bipartisan proposal. The fact is, nobody would oppose our idea in broad daylight, but it now seems that when the ink is dry on the final legislation, the taxpayers of this country are still going to get soaked. It is not right. It is not right because taxpayers in this country have been taking a beating with their health care costs and their fuel costs and trying to figure out how to stay in their homes. Companies normally pay bonuses when they are doing well. That wasn't the case with these Wall Street financial firms. Here is the math. The Wall Street firms took $274 billion in taxpayer money. When they weren't doing well, they paid $18 billion in bonuses, but they couldn't pay the taxpayers $3.2 billion of the amount paid--the excessive amount paid--in cash bonuses when the taxpayers are being hit in their wallets, as we all have seen every time we are home and talking to our constituents. The arguments of the financial firms don't add up to me, and they aren't going to add up to the millions of taxpayers whose money has gone to the financial firms. The taxpayers deserve to see in this stimulus legislation that somebody was actually standing up for them; that it wasn't just about speeches; it wasn't just about saying something was wrong; it was about backing up those words and taking concrete action to protect taxpayers. So I have come to the floor more than anything else to make it clear that I am a persistent guy, and I am going to stay at this until there is a better accounting for our taxpayers' money, until Congress puts a stop to these kinds of actions where financial firms take taxpayers' money and give the citizens of this country a runaround. This needs to end, and it needs to end now. It means concrete action has to be taken. That means more than speeches. We know in the days ahead these financial firms are likely to come back to the Congress of the United States and say they need additional sums of money to deal with the toxic loans that are on their books. How can one have confidence about giving these firms additional money when they have just paid bonuses during these tough times and they have fought--I know for a fact--against a reasonable provision to require that these bonuses be paid back. I intend to stay at this. It concerns me greatly that we didn't have a recorded vote here on the floor of the Senate on this provision. I knew that nobody would oppose this in broad daylight, but I had no idea there would be such an aggressive effort behind the scenes to kill a modest step to protect taxpayers, and particularly to find savings in this legislation. For days now, Senators of both political parties have been talking about ways to hold down the costs. A bipartisan group of Senators found a way--a reasonable way--to save more than $3 billion, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation. It is time to put a stop to financial firms taking taxpayers' money and using the money to pay bonuses to many of the same people responsible for the current financial crisis. I am old enough to know that normally you pay bonuses when you do well. That is what the American economy is all about. That is what capitalism is all about. Somehow, some of these institutions think they ought to be able to privatize their gains and socialize their losses. That is not right, and it wasn't right to kill this modest provision to force the repayment of the excessive amount of these Wall Street bonuses. So I intend to come back to the floor of the Senate on this subject. I will do everything I can to get a fair shake for the taxpayers of Oregon and the taxpayers of this country. I wish this bonus recovery provision was in the stimulus legislation that will be voted on here in the Senate. I regret greatly that it is not. I am going to stay with this until the taxpayers recover this money that shouldn't have been paid out in the first place. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I wish to mark a sad occasion: the recent death of one of Oregon's most respected Members of Congress, Wendell Wyatt, who represented the First District of Oregon from 1965 to 1975. He died peacefully on January 28th at the age of 91 in Portland, OR. With good humor and little interest in partisanship, Wendell Wyatt's congressional career began with his service on the House Interior Committee. He is best known, however, for his work on the House Interior Appropriations Subcommittee where his working relationship with its chair, distinguished Washingtonian Julia Butler Hansen, was a model of effective teamwork across party lines and--in this case-- across the Columbia River that separated their congressional districts. The same was true of his relationship with Democratic Congresswoman Edith Green, who represented Oregon's Third Congressional District, which includes most of Portland and is the district I was privileged to represent in the House before coming to the Senate. In fact, my Portland office is housed in the Edith Green-Wendell Wyatt Federal Building. Congressman Wyatt and Congresswoman Green--known simply in Oregon as Edith and Wendell--worked tirelessly together on many worthwhile civic projects that improved their city and their adjoining congressional districts. Their good work helped lay the foundation for the Portland we are proud of today. Wendell Wyatt was an advocate for the Federal workforce in Oregon, Government workers he regarded as good civil servants dedicated to serving the public interest. He also loved the individual service element of his work in Congress. Today, most offices call this ``casework,'' but to Wendell Wyatt it gave him the chance to help an individual constituent with his or her problem when the Federal Government was unresponsive or trying to put a square peg in a round hole. He never disrespected any Government official who was implementing something that had an adverse impact on one of his constituents, but he pressed the case strongly and effectively. As a young Member of the House, I remember other House members and longtime staffers talking about Wendell with great affection and admiration, someone who worked hard, got results, and always with good humor and without partisanship. His colleagues during that era in Congress included Gerald Ford, Melvin Laird, George H.W. Bush, and other like-minded House Republican moderates. Like them, he epitomized the saying that ``You could disagree without being disagreeable.'' In Oregon, he was part of a generation of elected officials whose goals were service, not partisanship, including Mark Hatfield and Tom McCall. When he retired from Congress in 1974, Wendell Wyatt returned to Oregon to become a partner in what is now the State's second largest law firm, Schwabe Williamson & Wyatt, where he is remembered as someone who rolled up his sleeves to help his clients, to close the deal, and to help add economic activity that created jobs for Oregonians. The commitment to public service runs strong in Wendell Wyatt's family. His son, Bill, was a member of the Oregon Legislature as a young man, later the chief of staff to an Oregon Governor, and is now the very effective executive director of the Port of Portland. Bill Wyatt is a longtime friend of mine and of others in the economic and political leadership of our State, and we all know that the Wyatt bloodline for service to our State has passed from father to son. I join his family, colleagues in his law firm, and his many good friends in mourning his death. I join the good citizens of the First Congressional District of Oregon, who salute his effective voice for them in Congress. And I stand with so many people throughout Oregon whose lives are better because of Wendell Wyatt's commitment to service in Congress. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of my remarks a few articles about Congressman Wyatt be printed in the Record. First, is the announcement of his death that appeared in the Portland City Club Bulletin, followed by the notice of Wyatt's death that appeared in the Oregonian newspaper and the warm editorial about Wendell. I ask that there next be printed the article in his hometown newspaper, the Daily Astorian, in which local residents reflect on his service to their community. The final document that I request be printed in the Record is the editorial in the Daily Astorian paying tribute to the dignity with which Wendell Wyatt served his district, our State and the Congress.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, Senators of both parties have worked hard to limit the costs of the economic recovery legislation. This bipartisan amendment that I offer with Senator Snowe and Senator Lincoln will, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation, reduce the cost of this bill by $3.2 billion. This amendment provides a way to quickly return to taxpayers a substantial portion of the money that was recently paid out in excessive bonuses to companies under the Troubled Asset Relief Program. Our people were horrified to learn that Citigroup and others that had received extensive Federal support had paid out billions of dollars in excessive bonuses. This amendment makes it clear that it is not enough to say the excessive bonuses are wrong; it requires that companies pay those bonuses back to our taxpayers. The amendment gives the companies a choice: Pay back the cash portion of any bonus paid in excess of $120,000 or pay an excise tax of 35 percent. This is a bipartisan amendment. I urge my colleagues to accept it on a voice vote.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, Senators are working to limit the cost of the stimulus legislation. This bipartisan amendment that I offer with Senator Snowe and Senator Lincoln, holds down the cost of the stimulus legislation by bringing back to the taxpayers billions and billions of dollars. This amendment provides a way to quickly return to taxpayers much of the $18 billion that has been paid out in excessive bonuses to companies under the Troubled Asset Relief Program. Americans were horrified recently to learn that Citigroup and others that had received extensive Federal support had paid out billions of dollars in excessive bonuses. This bipartisan amendment makes it clear it is not enough to say the excessive Wall Street bonuses were wrong, it makes clear they have to be paid back. Our amendment gives those companies that receive Federal bailout money and pay the unjustified large bonuses a choice: Pay back the cash portion of any bonus paid in excess of $100,000 within 120 days of the amendment's enactment, or pay an excise tax of 35 percent on what is not returned to the Treasury. The money can be repaid by the financial firms buying back the preferred stock the Federal Government owns in these companies or in any other fashion the institution chooses. Senator Snowe, Senator Lincoln, and I have received extensive legal analysis with respect to this amendment. It is clear our approach passes constitutional muster. Recently, I had printed in the Record a letter to me from Edward Kleinbard, head of the Joint Committee on Taxation, on this matter. I also wish to thank Mr. Kleinbard and his very professional staff for their analysis of this legislation. No other bipartisan bill proposed in either this body or the other body would force the repayment of these bonuses and actually protect the taxpayer. This amendment has real teeth, and it is supported by colleagues on both sides of the aisle. Let me close by saying, first, I wish to thank the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee and our wonderful staff. They have been so gracious, as always, to assist me on this. I would close by saying I think the President summed it up. The President said these bonuses ``were shameful.'' Now it is time for us to do our job and pass legislation with teeth that requires that these bonuses are repaid and the taxpayers are protected. I urge my colleagues to join Senator Snowe, Senator Lincoln, and myself in supporting a bipartisan approach in this area. It is particularly relevant this afternoon. I see my colleague and friend, a former chair, Senator McCain on the floor. He has done yeoman's work in terms of blowing the whistle for unjustifiable Federal spending. This is a bipartisan way, colleagues, to hold down the cost of the stimulus legislation. I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 468 be made pending. I know of no opposition at this point. No colleague has spoken in opposition and urge my colleagues to approve it. My sense is, it can probably be done on a voice vote. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN. I thank the chairman for his recognition of this important issue. I look forward to working with him during our consideration of health care reform this year.

Mr. WYDEN. Long-term care is in need of rethinking. Right now it is a form of Russian roulette for many Americans who pray they can avoid it, and with it a fatal financial bullet. Under the current system, we are sending older Americans into a long-term care system that is more fragile than they are. States are staggering under the weight of projected Medicaid long-term care costs and fear that they will face economic calamity as their baby boom population begins to need services. Similarly, the staggering weight of family caregiving for many ``sandwiched'' adult children, who are caring for their children as well as their elderly parents with serious health problems, makes some family members feel like they are staggering too. Every 15 years, since the days of Harry Truman, health care advocates have woken up, looked around, and said, ``This is the moment. This time my dream of universal health care will be achieved.'' Then something goes wrong. That vision is not returned by the powers that be, and the dream of finding a health care solution is dashed on the rocks of harsh reality. That 15-year reawakening is upon us again, but this time I believe this story might have a different ending because of the leadership of the Senator from Montana and the commitments of Chairmen Kennedy and Kohl and President Obama. As we work together to tackle health reform and entitlement reform, I want to work with you and Chairman Kohl to include thoughtful health care workforce reforms. Long-term care has been too often overlooked as the health care stepchild, and as we move into what I and many experts think will be our next real window for health reform this year, it will be important to make sure that long-term care is not left behind in the health reform debate.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I wish to enter a colloquy with my good friend, the Senator from Montana, and the senior Senator from Wisconsin, one of the chief authors of this amendment and the distinguished chair of the Special Committee on Aging. I would like to talk about the importance of investing in the long-term care workforce in order to provide good care for seniors and the disabled. Specifically, I would like to discuss the inclusion of long-term care reforms in the health reform bill. Chairman Kohl and I have worked together on the Long-Term Care Worker Recruitment and Investment Demonstration Program Amendment to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 because direct care jobs are a 21st century growth industry. With the aging of the baby boomer generation, this workforce will need to grow substantially if we are to meet the coming demand for both medical and nonmedical support services delivered in the home and in small community residences, as well as in more traditional nursing homes and assisted living facilities. However, today, we are not on track to achieve this goal. In order to meet the future health needs of older adults and recruit and retain a stable and competent long-term care workforce, the Congress, State governments, and the Obama administration need to work together.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up amendment No. 468.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, it is not my intention to object. I simply wanted to engage in a brief colloquy with the leader. It is my understanding, Mr. Leader, that it is your desire to move to a vote on those particular amendments you have outlined here this afternoon and this would not cut off the opportunity for Senators to continue to offer amendments. Myself and Senator Snowe--we have developed, for example, a bipartisan proposal.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I appreciate the courtesy of Senator Feingold and Senator McCain, who I know have a very important amendment. They have allowed me to come to the floor before them and speak about the amendment Senator Snowe and I will be offering later. I thank Senator Feingold and Senator McCain, and it is not my intention to give a lengthy speech at this point. Last week, Americans were horrified to hear the news that Citigroup and other companies receiving taxpayer money from the Troubled Asset Relief Program were paying their employees billions and billions of dollars in bonuses. Today, along with Senator Olympia Snowe, our colleague from Maine, I will offer a bipartisan amendment to this legislation that makes it clear it is not enough to say these Wall Street bonuses are wrong; they have to be paid back. Taxpayers must be protected, and that is what the amendment Senator Snowe and I are offering will do. Our proposal gives the institutions that received Troubled Asset Relief Program money and paid these outlandish bonuses a simple choice: The institutions will pay back the cash portion of any bonus paid in excess of $100,000 within 120 days of the amendment's enactment or those institutions would face an excise tax of 35 percent on what is not repaid to the Treasury. The money can be repaid by buying back the preferred stock the Federal Government owns in these companies or in any other fashion the institution chooses. Senator Snowe and I have had extensive legal review with respect to the constitutionality of this provision. We believe it passes constitutional muster. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter sent to me yesterday by Edward Kleinbard of the Joint Committee on Taxation.

Mr. WYDEN. I will read briefly now from the letter from Mr. Kleinbard. I will quote from the second paragraph: There is a powerful argument that your proposal is simply not retroactive. It is his judgment, based on what he has been able to look at thus far, it would be constitutional. Mr. Kleinbard states specifically: Taxpayers can avoid the tax completely by repurchasing shares they sold to the United States; the excise tax would be imposed not on prior bonuses, but on the taxpayer's affirmative post-enactment decision not to repurchase those shares at the same price that the shares were sold to the United States. Moreover, the timing, repurchase price and amount of shares that must be repurchased are not punitive, and are commensurate with the conduct that Congress can rationally find to be contrary to the purpose and intent of the EESA legislation that authorized the Treasury's investments. I think anyone who looks at the letter from the Joint Committee on Taxation will see that the bipartisan amendment Senator Snowe and I will be offering with respect to excessive cash bonuses is a matter that does pass constitutional muster and clearly is in the taxpayers' interest. I note my colleagues, particularly from Tennessee and Georgia, have made a number of good points that I happen to feel strongly about with respect to the need to address the current housing crisis, and one of the things we have seen with respect to housing and all of the other economic challenges we have is we have to get people's confidence back in the American economy. I believe the Snowe-Wyden amendment will help to generate that confidence by saying at some point we are going to say excessive bonuses are being paid, in effect, with taxpayer money. I mean these are companies who received billions and billions of taxpayer dollars. If we are going to have the confidence we need to promote housing, as the distinguished Senators from Tennessee and Georgia both noted, we have to make sure taxpayers do not say: This is wrong. This is not right to give these excessive bonuses with taxpayer money. I would note that Senator Snowe and I set the limit for bonuses at $100,000. So, clearly, we want to be sensitive to the young person getting started in financial services, someone, perhaps, who was a secretary. But it is the outlandish bonuses that we are concerned about. I would also note these TARP institutions have not yet paid their 2008 taxes. So what we have is a situation where a number of these companies have not yet paid their 2008 taxes. In other parts of this economic recovery legislation we are giving retroactive tax benefits. Certainly, that is the case with the net operating loss provisions, the carryback provisions, with respect to business. So it seems to me, if you are giving those kinds of retroactive tax breaks, you surely ought to take steps to protect taxpayers, as Senator Snowe and I seek to do with our legislation. The bottom line is, the Wall Street firms that took bailout money knew they were not supposed to pay their executives lavish bonuses, but they went ahead and paid out more than $18 billion in bonuses anyway. The Wyden-Snowe amendment makes sure these firms can't take the money and give the Congress and taxpayers the runaround. If they took the bailout money, the Wall Street firms either have to pay taxpayers back for the excessive bonuses, or they ought to pay a tax on these bonus payments. Either way, they should not be allowed to pay outrageous bonuses to executives and stick taxpayers with the bill. It is fundamentally wrong to reward with billions of taxpayer dollars this kind of conduct. We have all heard about handing out of bonuses to executives at firms responsible for the current economic meltdown. But what happened a couple of weeks ago takes this to a completely different level. At a time when the Congress is faced almost on a weekly basis with requests for billions of dollars of additional money, how in the world can we allow these kinds of bonuses, with taxpayer money, to stand, as if the economy were booming? My colleagues from Wisconsin and Arizona have been waiting patiently. I hope Members will look at the amendment Senator Snowe and I are offering. I hope they will look at the legal analysis provided by the Joint Committee on Taxation with respect to how and why this particular proposal passes constitutional muster. I hope the Senate will say it is not enough to just give speeches about how it is wrong to hand out these bonuses with taxpayer money but will back bipartisan legislation to correct it and to protect taxpayers at a critical time when we must increase confidence in how major economic decisions are made. I yield the floor. Amendment No. 140

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, as the Senate turns to the economic recovery bill I believe there is a message coming to the Senate from Oregon and every corner of our country. The message is that Americans do not want a bailout. They do not want a handout. What they want is legislation that provides a path out of these very difficult economic times. I believe that, working together this week, Democrats and Republicans can start building that path. I want to stress that I am especially interested in working with colleagues on the other side of the aisle on this critical legislation. I serve on the Senate Finance Committee, led by Chairman Baucus, and one of the best additions to this bill has been the relief that it provides from the crushing alternative minimum tax. This is a killer tax for middle-class folks. It is something, in my view, that we ought to get rid of permanently and I have proposed doing that as part of comprehensive tax reform. Well, as a result of the bipartisan work on this legislation in the Finance Committee, there is going to be relief from the AMT for hard-hit, middle-class families. There has also been important bipartisan work on the legislation's approach to infrastructure financing. A member of the Senate Republican leadership, Senator Thune of South Dakota, has worked with me to craft legislation called Build America Bonds, which uses a tax credit approach to bonds to wring more value from every dollar that's made available for infrastructure. The economic recovery bill includes a tax credit bond provision that is similar to our legislation, although not quite the same, and I will continue to push to improve it. I believe there are other ideas we are going to focus on, on the floor of the Senate, that will bring Democrats and Republicans together. A number of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have stressed the need to expand the legislation's support for homeowners and home buyers, to help make sure that people who want to stay in their homes and who are trying to buy a home can get additional relief. I am very pleased that colleagues on both sides of the aisle have come together to work on these kinds of ideas. For this week, I think there are several key principles that we ought to focus on. One that I feel especially strongly about is rewarding success. Instead of subsidizing failure, this legislation takes an approach that, in fact, rewards success. A prime example is the extension, for 3 years, of the renewable energy production tax credit. To get this tax credit, energy companies actually have to produce energy. As a result, American taxpayers will get something back for their hard-earned money. That is the kind of accountability that I think the American people have a right to expect. I think the legislation rewards enterprise, and I am very pleased about the bill's provision to provide enhanced writeoffs under section 179 for small businesses that invest in plants and equipment. Ultimately, what it comes down to is providing relief for middle- class folks so they can get assistance during these difficult times. For example, there has been discussion of the bill's supports for health information technology. One big reason that middle-class folks cannot get ahead is that their medical costs gobble up their paychecks and one of the reasons that medical costs have skyrocketed is that there are so many errors in the health care system--errors and inefficiencies, such as duplicative tests. It seems to me that by investing in health information technology, you make a downpayment on a long-term strategy for holding down medical costs and that is extraordinarily important to middle-class folks. So we will be talking about this issue more. I note the presence of the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee. One of the reasons I am confident we can approach this issue in a bipartisan way is because that is how the chairman of the Appropriations Committee has always worked. That has also been the case with Senator Cochran, Chairman Baucus, and Senator Grassley. We are open to the best possible ideas. That is why President Obama, to his credit, has been reaching out. As far as I can tell, he has that phone practically attached to his ear talking to colleagues and saying: Bring us your best ideas. We have tried in the Senate Finance Committee, as Chairman Inouye has done in the Appropriations Committee, to start incorporating good ideas, whether they come from the Republican side of the aisle or the Democratic side. I think we can improve this bill even more. But because it rewards success, because it rewards enterprise, because there are already good ideas that both parties support, I would urge colleagues to use this week, working with our chairs and with the Obama administration, to come together--because my view is, as I articulated, that the public does want a path out of these terrible economic times. We have a chance to make it clear that this is not a bailout, that it is not a handout, but rather the start of a path out of this tough economic period. I hope our colleagues will use this week, under the leadership of the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Chairman Baucus of the Finance Committee, and the ranking minority members, to make sure that by the end of this week we have shown the American people that this important legislation on recovery and investment is moving forward--to deal with the critical needs of those we represent at home. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined today by my colleague Senator Mike Crapo, to introduce this important piece of legislation for America's rural hospitals. I first introduced this legislation in 2007 with Senator Smith, and I am proud to continue our fight for rural hospitals in this Congress. Today, my fellow Oregonian, Representative Greg Walden, is introducing this same bill in the House of Representatives. The Medicare program is turning rural communities into ``health care sacrifice'' zones. Under current law, critical access hospitals either have to risk their financial viability or their patient's health if a 26th patient walks in their door. Rural hospitals need greater flexibility from the Medicare program to fulfill their obligations to their communities--especially, but not limited to, their veterans--in times of public health emergencies. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 merged a Montana initiative, the medical assistance facility demonstration, and the Rural Primary Care Hospital program into a new category of hospitals called critical access hospitals CAH. By design, the Critical Access Hospital program in Medicare ensures that rural communities have access to acute care and emergency services 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. In order to obtain this designation, hospitals must meet certain requirements, such as being located more than 35 miles from any other hospital, or receiving certification by the state to be a ``necessary provider.'' Critical access hospitals must also provide 24-hour emergency care services. As a designated critical access hospital, Medicare pays these hospitals based on its reported costs. Each critical access hospital receives 101 percent of its costs for outpatient, inpatient, laboratory, and therapy services. There are nearly 1,300 hospitals across the United States in 47 states that operate under a critical access hospital designation. Twenty-five of them are in Oregon. One requirement of this program is that there be no more than 25 beds occupied by patients at any one time. This requirement has proven to be too constricting for facilities during times of unexpected need, such as during an influenza outbreak or an influx of tourism to the community. Critical access hospital administrators in Oregon, especially Dennis Burke from Good Shepherd Medical Center in Hermiston and Jim Mattes at Grande Ronde Hospital in LaGrande, have expressed to me how this restriction has lead to unnecessary risks to patient safety and health. Hospital administrators have been forced to divert the 26th and 27th patient in their hospitals to a hospital much farther from their homes and families. This legislation makes two important changes to the Medicare Critical Access Hospital Program. First, this bill will provide the flexibility necessary for a critical access hospital to either choose to meet either the 25-bed-per-day limit or work with a limit of 20-beds-per-day averaged throughout the year. During times of spikes in public health need, these hospitals would be able to care for more patients even if the hospital would exceed the use of 25 beds. Second, this bill exempts beds used by veterans whose care is paid for or coordinated by the Department of Veterans Affairs, VA, from counting against the 25-bed limit or 20-bed yearly average. This change gives CAHs the flexibility they need to treat America's military veterans at a time when the VA has divested in hospital care for our rural veterans, forcing them into these already tightly restricted community hospitals. This bill also ensures that these hospitals are meeting the requirements under the law without breaking the bank. This new yearly average of 20 beds is set lower than the daily limit, 25 beds, to ensure that Medicare does not inappropriately expand this program. For example, Grande Ronde Hospital would save Medicare an average of $100,000 each year for ambulance transfers of Medicare/Medicaid patients, all of whom could be treated within their facility had it been able to be flexible on counting bed days. I believe that these simple changes in the current law are critically important to keeping our rural hospitals open and their communities' health care needs served. As we look to expand access to health coverage, this bill will ensure that the nearly 1,300 critical access hospitals in the country have the flexibility they need to remain open for the millions of Americans who depend on them. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this bill, and I look forward to working with Chairman Baucus and Ranking Member Grassley and other members of the Finance Committee to secure passage of this important bill. 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 be joined today by my colleague Senator Mike Crapo, to introduce this important piece of legislation for America's rural hospitals. I first introduced this legislation in 2007 with Senator Smith, and I am proud to continue our fight for rural hospitals in this Congress. Today, my fellow Oregonian, Representative Greg Walden, is introducing this same bill in the House of Representatives. The Medicare program is turning rural communities into ``health care sacrifice'' zones. Under current law, critical access hospitals either have to risk their financial viability or their patient's health if a 26th patient walks in their door. Rural hospitals need greater flexibility from the Medicare program to fulfill their obligations to their communities--especially, but not limited to, their veterans--in times of public health emergencies. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 merged a Montana initiative, the medical assistance facility demonstration, and the Rural Primary Care Hospital program into a new category of hospitals called critical access hospitals CAH. By design, the Critical Access Hospital program in Medicare ensures that rural communities have access to acute care and emergency services 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. In order to obtain this designation, hospitals must meet certain requirements, such as being located more than 35 miles from any other hospital, or receiving certification by the state to be a ``necessary provider.'' Critical access hospitals must also provide 24-hour emergency care services. As a designated critical access hospital, Medicare pays these hospitals based on its reported costs. Each critical access hospital receives 101 percent of its costs for outpatient, inpatient, laboratory, and therapy services. There are nearly 1,300 hospitals across the United States in 47 states that operate under a critical access hospital designation. Twenty-five of them are in Oregon. One requirement of this program is that there be no more than 25 beds occupied by patients at any one time. This requirement has proven to be too constricting for facilities during times of unexpected need, such as during an influenza outbreak or an influx of tourism to the community. Critical access hospital administrators in Oregon, especially Dennis Burke from Good Shepherd Medical Center in Hermiston and Jim Mattes at Grande Ronde Hospital in LaGrande, have expressed to me how this restriction has lead to unnecessary risks to patient safety and health. Hospital administrators have been forced to divert the 26th and 27th patient in their hospitals to a hospital much farther from their homes and families. This legislation makes two important changes to the Medicare Critical Access Hospital Program. First, this bill will provide the flexibility necessary for a critical access hospital to either choose to meet either the 25-bed-per-day limit or work with a limit of 20-beds-per-day averaged throughout the year. During times of spikes in public health need, these hospitals would be able to care for more patients even if the hospital would exceed the use of 25 beds. Second, this bill exempts beds used by veterans whose care is paid for or coordinated by the Department of Veterans Affairs, VA, from counting against the 25-bed limit or 20-bed yearly average. This change gives CAHs the flexibility they need to treat America's military veterans at a time when the VA has divested in hospital care for our rural veterans, forcing them into these already tightly restricted community hospitals. This bill also ensures that these hospitals are meeting the requirements under the law without breaking the bank. This new yearly average of 20 beds is set lower than the daily limit, 25 beds, to ensure that Medicare does not inappropriately expand this program. For example, Grande Ronde Hospital would save Medicare an average of $100,000 each year for ambulance transfers of Medicare/Medicaid patients, all of whom could be treated within their facility had it been able to be flexible on counting bed days. I believe that these simple changes in the current law are critically important to keeping our rural hospitals open and their communities' health care needs served. As we look to expand access to health coverage, this bill will ensure that the nearly 1,300 critical access hospitals in the country have the flexibility they need to remain open for the millions of Americans who depend on them. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this bill, and I look forward to working with Chairman Baucus and Ranking Member Grassley and other members of the Finance Committee to secure passage of this important bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business and have that time charged to our side as part of the TARP legislation.

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, the outdoors is a great passion for the people of Oregon, and it is truly a good day for Oregonians. The Omnibus Public Land Management Act contains protection for a number of our special places, our treasures; in the case of Mount Hood, an Oregon icon that is revered by our people. I serve as chairman of the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests. I know how important these public lands bills are. The fact is, they are of special benefit from a moral perspective. What we are doing is guaranteeing that these beautiful lands can be passed on to future generations. But they also help fuel our economic engine. The reality is, the protection for the great outdoors boosts our effort to promote recreation which is increasingly a major source of employment. I want to take a few minutes to discuss the five pieces of wilderness legislation I was heavily involved in. Many other Oregonians were as well, countless Oregonians. I also give special thanks to Senator Gordon Smith who contributed mightily to this effort, working with me on this legislation and this package for many years. The legislation passed includes seven key bills I sponsored. The five that add wilderness include: 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. The Lewis and Clark Mount Hood Wilderness Act has been the product of years and years of work to protect a cherished State treasure. More people take pictures of Mount Hood than any other landmark in our State. That is saying something, because Oregon has a lot of breathtaking nature to photograph. Mount Hood is not just a symbol of our State. It is a monument to the deep connection our people have to their land. This bill is a triumph of environmental protection that wouldn't have been possible without an effort to build a Statewide consensus bringing together thousands of constituent community groups and elected officials who said: We are going to keep fighting for this until Mount Hood gets this added measure of protection. Our legislation builds on the existing Mount Hood wilderness, adds more Wild and Scenic rivers, and creates a recreation area to allow diverse opportunities for recreation. We protect, under the bill, the lower elevation forests surrounding Mount Hood and our special Columbia River Gorge. The protected areas include scenic vistas, almost 127,000 acres of Wilderness and, in tribute to the great river-dependent journey of Lewis and Clark, the addition of 79 miles on 9 free-flowing stretches of river to the National Wild and Scenic River system. I have a picture of the mountain that illustrates why we Oregonians feel so strongly about wilderness and Mount Hood. Richard L. Kohnstamm, long revered as the crusader who restored the jewel known as Timberline Lodge, is shown here skiing under Illumination Rock. My friend Dick Kohnstamm treasured the wildness of Mount Hood and had the vision of bringing national prominence to Alpine sports on the mountain. Under Dick's guidance, Timberline Lodge was the first ski area in our country to become a National Historic Landmark and to have the Nation's first year-round skiing. We are honored today to name the area in this picture the Richard L. Kohnstamm Memorial Area. It is a fitting legacy to an Oregonian who had remarkable foresight. In public meetings in our State and in letters and phone calls, we heard from over 100 community groups and local governments, from members of our congressional delegation, the Governor and the Bush administration. To say that this has been a labor of love for many would be a gross understatement. As I have indicated, countless organizations, agencies and interested groups have met to discuss the development of this bill. I want to clarify that wilderness on Mount Hood is very important, it is also important to acknowledge that Highway 35 is an important transportation corridor, connecting Interstate 84, the communities of Hood River County and the Columbia River Gorge to the recreation areas on Mount Hood and US 26. It is part of the National Highway System and a designated freight route as well as a highway facility of statewide importance--the highest designation in Oregon's highway classification system. Highway 35 runs adjacent to the East Fork of the Hood River, which will be protected as a Wild and Scenic Rivers. The Wild and Scenic Rivers designation recognizes the outstanding scenery, recreational opportunities and fish runs of the East Fork of the Hood River. During winter storms when events require emergency repairs to the roads, the designation of the East Fork of Hood River is not intended to impair the ability of the State of Oregon to take necessary steps to operate, maintain, or preserve the state highway in accordance to all environmental laws and processes. In particular, the State of Oregon is considering a number of projects that will address problem locations such as Polallie Creek, White River, and Newton and Clark creeks where floods and debris flows have in the past resulted in temporary closure of the highway. I hope the U.S. Forest Service and Federal Highway Administration will continue working with the State of Oregon to find solutions that will address these problem locations in a manner consistent with the designation of the East Fork as a Wild and Scenic River. It is my intention that efforts in this legislation to protect the Wild and Scenic East and Middle Forks of the Hood River will not have any significant impact on the operation of the local irrigation districts, including the normal maintenance or repair of existing infrastructure that is legally in use by the irrigation districts at this time. I am encouraged that the long standing dispute over the Cooper Spur area will near to a close with the passage of this legislation. However, I want to be clear that our intention is that the U.S. Forest Service shall proceed in a timely manner in completing this land exchange. The land exchange should be completed within a total of 16 months. Protecting the clean drinking water in the Crystal Springs watershed is of the utmost importance. Two other bills in this legislation will protect two unique places on the east side of the Cascades in our State. The Oregon Badlands Wilderness Act of 2008 would designate as Wilderness almost 30,000 acres of the area just east of the Bend known as the Badlands. The legislation will not only magnify the area's magnificent natural attributes, it will cement our region's well-earned reputation as a hub for a wide diversity of outdoor recreation sports. In this economy, that is a prospect that many central Oregon business leaders and citizens enthusiastically support. In central Oregon, people can enjoy almost any kind of outdoor activity--boating and biking and skiing and horseback riding and hunting and riding off-road vehicles and a variety of sports. Environmental protection doesn't have to come at the expense of economic growth. This legislation is a textbook case of proving that theory. It preserves the unique landscapes that bring visitors to the Badlands and will add to the growing value of Bend's brand as being one of the best places in the country to enjoy outdoor recreation, live, work, and raise a family. It also provides for two land exchanges that will benefit the new wilderness. I would like to specifically provide some background regarding the land exchange with the Central Oregon Irrigation District. The district is an exemplary steward of natural resources in Oregon. Established in 1918, COID provides irrigation water to over 9,000 families across 45,000 acres of productive land in Central Oregon's Deschutes Basin. The district's 700 miles of canals convey water to farmers, ranchers, schools, parks and others in the cities of Bend and Redmond. The new wilderness area is adjacent to roughly 3.5 miles of canals and laterals owned and operated by the district under an 1891 Federal right of way. As I understand it, this right of way extends 50 feet from the toe of the canal levee to the north and south. This essential right of way provides the district with access to the canals and laterals for routine inspection, maintenance improvements, and emergency repairs. The language in section 1704(e)(3) protects the district's existing rights to the canal, including the rights provided under the 1891 right of way. During our development of this legislation, the boundary of the wilderness area was specifically set back to respect this historic and important right of way. The Spring Basin Wilderness Act of 2008 would designate approximately 8,600 acres as the Spring Basin Wilderness. Overlooking the John Day Wild and Scenic River, the rolling hills of Spring Basin are famous for their burst of color during the spring wildflower bloom. It boasts canyons and diverse geology that draws more hikers, horseback riders, hunters, and other outdoor enthusiasts. Also among the bills in this comprehensive legislation is the Copper Salmon Wilderness Act. My bill on this issue protects the headwaters of the north fork of the Elk River. It is a gem known as the Copper Salmon area. It adds 13,700 acres of new Wilderness and designates 9.3 miles of Wild and Scenic rivers. Copper Salmon is one of those places that crystallizes Oregon's reputation as an outdoor paradise. This bill gives crucial protection to the area's wildlife and to the prized salmon and steelhead that attract anglers from across the world. During the last decade, a dedicated group of local conservationists, fishermen, and community leaders have worked passionately to protect this area. It is one of the last intact watersheds on the southwest Oregon coast. It is a very special treasure. Fishermen and hunters are going to come to the Copper Salmon area for generations to come. I am thrilled it has been protected. Finally, I am pleased to join former Senator Smith on legislation to establish a 23,000-acre Soda Mountain Wilderness in the Cascade Siskiyou National Monument Voluntary and Equitable Grazing Conflict Resolution Act. The protections here help ensure that what we call the Noah's Ark of botanical diversity remains undisturbed and healthy. There has been bipartisan leadership and dedicated work from people within the community. What folks of southern Oregon have shown is that it is possible to come up with a homegrown solution that serves the public interest. This legislation is a prime example of ranchers and environmentalists sitting down together to work out conflicts in a consensus-oriented fashion. They didn't look to some kind of Washington approach, a one- size-fits-all approach. They said: As ranchers and conservationists, we are going to address this issue of grazing allotments in a thoughtful way. The bill enables conservation organizations to raise additional money they can use to compensate ranchers who voluntarily retire their Federal grazing leases. It also designates a significant amount of new Wilderness within the monument. Each one of these bills came about because Oregonians said: On the issue that we care so much about, the outdoors and protecting our treasures, we are going to come to the table from every walk of life--urban and rural, environmentalist and rancher--to say that as a State it is extraordinarily important that we protect our treasures for future generations, and we can do it in a way that will also boost our economic engine at a time when so many Oregonians are hurting and having difficulty paying the bills for the essentials. I was very proud to have been the lead sponsor of these seven pieces of legislation. But the fact is, the real credit goes to thousands and thousands of Oregonians who pitched in from every corner of the State for years and years, working with myself, with Congressman Walden, Congressman Blumenauer, and colleagues from the other body. Of course, I recognize Senator Smith's contribution this afternoon. Today, Oregonians have something to enjoy, and they can particularly reflect on the fact that so many future generations of our citizens will have something to be able to enjoy in the years ahead. Madam President, with that, I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, despite the record transportation funding that Congress provided in the 2005 Transportation Reauthorization bill--SAFETEA-LU--our Nation's infrastructure is being stressed to the breaking point. Our ports and rail lines are at or near capacity. Our highways are clogged. Congress is working with President-Elect Obama on an economic stimulus package that will probably include funding for ``shovel- ready'' transportation projects. But even that won't come close to rehabilitating our Nation's transportation infrastructure. The American Society of Civil Engineers has noted that over the next 5 years $1.6 trillion in investment is needed from all levels of government to keep our Nation's current transportation system up to date. To put that into perspective, our Nation's infrastructure needs roughly i times as much funding as was included in SAFETEA-LU. The question is ``Where do we find the transportation funding that our country needs to meet our transportation and our economic needs?'' Senator Thune's and my answer is to invest in America. Everyone agrees that our country's infrastructure needs are tremendous. Everyone agrees that our country needs to invest more in transportation. What Congress hasn't been able to agree on is where to find the money. Gas taxes just don't generate enough revenues to even begin to satisfy highway and transit needs. In this budget climate, pots of extra Federal money are not just sitting around waiting to be used, and States surely don't have any extra money either. Most have budget deficits. All the conventional funding sources are coming up short, so Senator Thune and I think it's time to think outside the box--and outside the trust funds. The Federal Government is about the only entity in the country that does not borrow money for capital projects, but in this climate it should and it must. Senator Thune and I have come up with a creative approach to provide $50 billion of additional new funding for transportation projects our country desperately needs by issuing Build America Bonds. Our country's needs are so great that we think funding should be made available that is in addition to SAFETEA-LU. Our legislation is not a substitute for fixing the transportation trust fund. We still must address that problem, and later this year we must start on a new Transportation bill. Our legislation is meant to provide extra money on top of regular transportation funding. This money could not be earmarked by Congress. This will not fund any Senator's pet project. This money will be controlled by the States, and used for the projects they think are most critical. An annual amount of approximately $500 million from trade fees will be placed in an Infrastructure Finance Account and invested for the life of the bonds, which will generate more than enough to repay the entire $50 billion principal amount. That means the only cost to the Government is the ``interest portion'' on the bonds, which is in the form of tax credits. With this funding mechanism, as little as $2 billion a year could generate the $50 billion in funding for transportation infrastructure. I call that a very smart investment in our country's infrastructure. This investment is badly needed. Citizens stuck in traffic choking on exhaust need relief. Truckers who need to detour miles out of their way to avoid weight-limited bridges need relief. As our economy struggles with millions of workers losing their jobs, stagnating wages, the loss of even basic health benefits for many, and a mortgage market that is spiraling downward, the American economy desperately needs a shot in the arm. The U.S. Department of Transportation estimates that each $1 billion of funding for transportation directly produces nearly 50,000 jobs. So under the Wyden/Thune proposal the $50 billion of new transportation funding will provide critical economic stimulus that will create up to 2.5 million family wage jobs. This is an economic stimulus idea that will generate more funding for the economy now. It will create jobs. It's a chance for the Federal Government to hold up its end of the bargain with our States.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, despite the record transportation funding that Congress provided in the 2005 Transportation Reauthorization bill--SAFETEA-LU--our Nation's infrastructure is being stressed to the breaking point. Our ports and rail lines are at or near capacity. Our highways are clogged. Congress is working with President-Elect Obama on an economic stimulus package that will probably include funding for ``shovel- ready'' transportation projects. But even that won't come close to rehabilitating our Nation's transportation infrastructure. The American Society of Civil Engineers has noted that over the next 5 years $1.6 trillion in investment is needed from all levels of government to keep our Nation's current transportation system up to date. To put that into perspective, our Nation's infrastructure needs roughly i times as much funding as was included in SAFETEA-LU. The question is ``Where do we find the transportation funding that our country needs to meet our transportation and our economic needs?'' Senator Thune's and my answer is to invest in America. Everyone agrees that our country's infrastructure needs are tremendous. Everyone agrees that our country needs to invest more in transportation. What Congress hasn't been able to agree on is where to find the money. Gas taxes just don't generate enough revenues to even begin to satisfy highway and transit needs. In this budget climate, pots of extra Federal money are not just sitting around waiting to be used, and States surely don't have any extra money either. Most have budget deficits. All the conventional funding sources are coming up short, so Senator Thune and I think it's time to think outside the box--and outside the trust funds. The Federal Government is about the only entity in the country that does not borrow money for capital projects, but in this climate it should and it must. Senator Thune and I have come up with a creative approach to provide $50 billion of additional new funding for transportation projects our country desperately needs by issuing Build America Bonds. Our country's needs are so great that we think funding should be made available that is in addition to SAFETEA-LU. Our legislation is not a substitute for fixing the transportation trust fund. We still must address that problem, and later this year we must start on a new Transportation bill. Our legislation is meant to provide extra money on top of regular transportation funding. This money could not be earmarked by Congress. This will not fund any Senator's pet project. This money will be controlled by the States, and used for the projects they think are most critical. An annual amount of approximately $500 million from trade fees will be placed in an Infrastructure Finance Account and invested for the life of the bonds, which will generate more than enough to repay the entire $50 billion principal amount. That means the only cost to the Government is the ``interest portion'' on the bonds, which is in the form of tax credits. With this funding mechanism, as little as $2 billion a year could generate the $50 billion in funding for transportation infrastructure. I call that a very smart investment in our country's infrastructure. This investment is badly needed. Citizens stuck in traffic choking on exhaust need relief. Truckers who need to detour miles out of their way to avoid weight-limited bridges need relief. As our economy struggles with millions of workers losing their jobs, stagnating wages, the loss of even basic health benefits for many, and a mortgage market that is spiraling downward, the American economy desperately needs a shot in the arm. The U.S. Department of Transportation estimates that each $1 billion of funding for transportation directly produces nearly 50,000 jobs. So under the Wyden/Thune proposal the $50 billion of new transportation funding will provide critical economic stimulus that will create up to 2.5 million family wage jobs. This is an economic stimulus idea that will generate more funding for the economy now. It will create jobs. It's a chance for the Federal Government to hold up its end of the bargain with our States.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I am very pleased to be able to be out on the Senate floor today with our incoming chair of the Intelligence Committee to discuss this legislation. Senator Feinstein and I have sat next to each other on the Intelligence Committee now for I think about 8 years. We have talked about this issue on many occasions. I commend the Senator from California for all of her leadership. This is the right way to start off our committee on breaking with the last 8 years of flawed policies that have been of dubious effectiveness and dubious legality. I am very pleased, honored to be one of our cosponsors, and I note that our outgoing chair, Senator Rockefeller, is one of our cosponsors, and Sheldon Whitehouse, the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island, is one of the cosponsors and is a great addition to our committee as well. So I thank the chair for all of her leadership. What I think Senator Feinstein has touched upon, and very thoughtfully, is, if you share our view that it is possible to fight terrorism ferociously without compromising American laws or American values, you must, as Senator Feinstein has correctly stated, you must be smarter in order to strike that balance in a dangerous world. Regrettably, this administration has not been willing to show this sort of wisdom. All too often for the last 8 years the administration has engaged in complicated legal gymnastics to justify antiterrorism programs that, in my view, are of questionable effectiveness, questionable legality. Today, the incoming chair of our committee, Senator Feinstein, is helping us with this important legislation. The Lawful Interrogation and Detention Act is helping us to right the balance and show the country that with smart antiterrorism policies we can effectively fight the war against terrorism and at the same time restore our moral authority and protect our values. I will tell you, based on the information I have seen again and again, and what we are told by military leaders, these coercive techniques simply are not effective. General Petraeus, for example, has discussed with respect to soldiers in Iraq, that coercive techniques may be usable in terms of forcing someone to talk, but that does not necessarily mean the person will say something that protects American security. Senator McCain, our distinguished colleague from Arizona, has made much of the same point. Certainly, the use of these techniques in a number of instances can be detrimental to our national security. Certainly, the techniques have discouraged allies in the past from cooperating with us and, frankly, in my view, they serve as something of a recruiting poster for our enemies. One of the areas I hope to pursue in the future, not as part of this legislation but working with our incoming chair, working with our ranking minority member, Senator Bond, and the administration of the President-elect, is I hope to be able to declassify a significant portion of the history of this program, particularly the legal underpinnings of this program, so the American people will actually be able to see that much of what has been done in the last 8 years simply is not as effective in the war against terrorism as the American people deserve. Certainly, it is important to recognize that when Americans are captured abroad in the future, international standards of prisoner treatment, particularly the Geneva Convention, will sometimes be the only shield they have. These standards have evolved from hopeful ideals into widely observed rules of conduct, partly because the most powerful country on Earth has led by example. Anytime our Government attempts to dodge these standards, it weakens them, and it increases the risk of abuse for our prisoners. The fact that our worst enemies have horrifying and barbaric methods for dealing with prisoners does not, in my view, make these methods useful or legitimate. I am confident that President-elect Obama is not going to engage in many of the practices that we have seen in the last 8 years. But I certainly want to pass legislation that codifies these important principles and makes sure that none of his future successors engage in these practices. That means you have to make the laws plain; you have to make them strong. This legislation will make them plainer and stronger than they are today. I would submit that is essentially what Senator Feinstein has been working for all these past years. I want to mention a couple of the other provisions. I was struck by Senator Feinstein's comment with respect to the use of contractor interrogators at the CIA. As Senator Feinstein noted, we do not get to have a lot of open sessions in our Intelligence Committee. That is for obvious reasons; we are dealing with classified material. But I have felt, as Senator Feinstein, very strongly about this topic and actually raised this concern with Admiral McConnell at his confirmation hearing to head our intelligence service. I remain concerned about this issue, and that provision in the Feinstein legislation is especially important, in my view, because interrogators must be accountable. Under the clear language with respect to these interrogators in the Feinstein legislation, that will be the case. Finally, let me comment on the provision that closes the prison at Guantanamo. During the past 8 years, I was concerned about the potential impact of this legislation and this provision. I was concerned at that point because it was not clear to me that President Bush had a competent plan for dealing with all of the prisoners currently held there. I was concerned that closing Guantanamo could simply lead to a massive upswing in extraordinary rendition. Fortunately, President- elect Obama is working on a different strategy for dealing with those prisoners at Guantanamo, so I no longer have the same concern that under his administration we would simply have prisoners handed over to foreign countries that would torture them. I have long believed that if you looked at the intent of the Bush administration in this area, they sought to create a prison at Guantanamo Bay that would be under U.S. control but beyond the reach of U.S. law. Now the Supreme Court has definitively ruled that constitutional protections apply to people at Guantanamo Bay. So I would hope that even the prison's strongest advocates would say it serves no useful purpose. The combination of the clear language in the Feinstein legislation we discuss today and that President-elect Obama is looking at a comprehensive plan for dealing with the prisoners at Guantanamo leaves me with a reassurance that there is a chance to close this prison and do it in a responsible fashion that will protect America's national security interests. There are four of us who are sponsoring this legislation. We have sought for many months to get these issues of interrogation and Guantanamo right. We have consistently tried to pursue this in a bipartisan fashion. We are going to continue to do so in this session. I believe, under the leadership of our incoming chair, it is going to be possible to get our Nation's counterterrorism program back on a firm legal and operational footing and prevent the mistakes of the past from being repeated. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Yesterday, when I heard the majority leader was going to call a cloture vote, I changed my schedule and hurriedly returned to Washington, DC, from Oregon, where I had been working on the Oregon Business Plan at the Oregon Business Summit in Portland. I was on an airplane, about an hour away from the Capitol, when the Senate Leader called the vote, and I missed the cloture vote on the $14 billion loan package for the U.S. automobile industry. It is my understanding that if my vote could have possibly made the difference, the Leader would have waited for my plane to arrive, but I want it to be noted that it was my intention to vote for cloture. While I continue to have concerns about ensuring that taxpayers are protected if this loan is to occur, I believe that if the President can unwisely provide $700 billion of taxpayer money for the investment banks that took horribly unacceptable risks and helped trigger an economic collapse, we certainly have a duty to attempt to preserve a cornerstone domestic industry and the jobs of hundreds of thousands of working people whose personal actions are in no way responsible for the current economic crisis.