Ron Wyden

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I hope tomorrow the Senate will pass urgently needed help for millions of America's children. I hope it will be done quickly because it is a moral abomination that millions of America's kids don't have health care. If the Senate acts quickly and the White House approves the legislation, it would then be possible to move forward on a bipartisan effort to more broadly address the extraordinary health care needs of all of our citizens. The fact is, you don't get anything important done on health care, or other issues, unless it is bipartisan. Tomorrow, we will see a textbook case of bipartisanship on display on the floor of the Senate. Four members of the Senate Finance Committee on which I am proud to serve-- Senators Baucus, Grassley, Rockefeller, and Hatch--and I see my friend from Utah on the floor. I salute him personally in my remarks because I know the Senator from Utah, the Senator from West Virginia, the Senator from Montana, and the Senator from Iowa spent hours and hours, day after day, working on the legislation to help our kids. Bills such as this don't happen by osmosis; they happen because legislators of good faith, such as Senator Hatch, who, along with Senator Kennedy and others, was a pioneer of this effort. Senator Hatch has addressed the major concerns. This is protecting private options for health care for children. He has been able to target the neediest youngsters. I am pleased he has addressed this waiver question and the remarks that the Senator has made and the distinguished Senator from Iowa has made, joining Senators Baucus and Rockefeller. This is a textbook case, in my view, of how we address health care in a bipartisan way. Frankly, one of the points I am going to make tonight in my remarks is that I wish to have this issue addressed by the Senate quickly because, first, our kids need it so much and, second, because if we can get it done quickly, he and I, Senator Grassley, and so many other colleagues on the Finance Committee still want to work in a bipartisan way to go further.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, Oregon's coastal forests contain many hidden gems. Within the lush rainforests of the Siskiyou-Rogue River National Forest, we find one of these gems--the headwaters of the North Fork of the Elk River, known as the Copper Salmon area. Today I introduce a bill to protect this natural treasure, which lies adjacent to the existing Grassy Knob Wilderness. During the last decade, a dedicated group of local conservationists has been working hard to protect Copper Salmon. It is one of the last intact watersheds on the southwest Oregon coast. Copper Salmon is renowned among fishermen. For anglers seeking to catch a trophy chinook salmon or winter steelhead for the barbeque or smoker in Oregon, this is the place. Few watersheds in Oregon can match the Elk River drainage. Even after torrential rainstorms, anglers are still able to fish the Elk. When 25 inches of rain fell over 18 straight days last December, the Elk was still fishable while the other rivers in southwest Oregon, Rogue, Umpqua, Coquille, were clouded with debris and mud. Copper Salmon also supports healthy populations of blacktail deer, elk, black bear and mountain lion. This beautiful gem on the southwestern Oregon coast provides great and challenging opportunities here to hunt in freedom and solitude. Mr. President, 80 percent of the watershed in this region is still intact. The Elk has healthy wild runs of winter steelhead and chinook. It also has some coho salmon and sea-run cutthroat trout, as well as resident cutthroats and rainbow trout. Oregon State University researchers believe it is one of the healthiest anadromous fish streams in the lower 48. There is a reason why: intact habitat. My bill would provide permanent protections to 13,700 acres of new wilderness. It would also designate 9.3 miles of wild and scenic rivers. Wilderness and wild and scenic designations will protect this watershed and ensure that hunting and fishing opportunities are protected in the Copper Salmon area. Wilderness designation is popular in the local area, as evidenced by resolutions in favor of it from the Port Orford Chamber of Commerce, the mayor of Port Orford, and the Curry County Commissioners. Additionally, a majority of the guides, lodges and local citizens have supported this proposal. It is time now that we all come together and permanently protect this special place. As Oregon's population grows, I believe that we must match this growth and the corresponding development with protection of our natural heritage. Protection of these areas will ensure that Oregonians and visitors will continue to enjoy opportunities to hike in the wilderness, hunt healthy populations of elk, blacktail deer, black bear, mountain lion and to catch trophy-sized chinook and steelhead. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, Oregon's coastal forests contain many hidden gems. Within the lush rainforests of the Siskiyou-Rogue River National Forest, we find one of these gems--the headwaters of the North Fork of the Elk River, known as the Copper Salmon area. Today I introduce a bill to protect this natural treasure, which lies adjacent to the existing Grassy Knob Wilderness. During the last decade, a dedicated group of local conservationists has been working hard to protect Copper Salmon. It is one of the last intact watersheds on the southwest Oregon coast. Copper Salmon is renowned among fishermen. For anglers seeking to catch a trophy chinook salmon or winter steelhead for the barbeque or smoker in Oregon, this is the place. Few watersheds in Oregon can match the Elk River drainage. Even after torrential rainstorms, anglers are still able to fish the Elk. When 25 inches of rain fell over 18 straight days last December, the Elk was still fishable while the other rivers in southwest Oregon, Rogue, Umpqua, Coquille, were clouded with debris and mud. Copper Salmon also supports healthy populations of blacktail deer, elk, black bear and mountain lion. This beautiful gem on the southwestern Oregon coast provides great and challenging opportunities here to hunt in freedom and solitude. Mr. President, 80 percent of the watershed in this region is still intact. The Elk has healthy wild runs of winter steelhead and chinook. It also has some coho salmon and sea-run cutthroat trout, as well as resident cutthroats and rainbow trout. Oregon State University researchers believe it is one of the healthiest anadromous fish streams in the lower 48. There is a reason why: intact habitat. My bill would provide permanent protections to 13,700 acres of new wilderness. It would also designate 9.3 miles of wild and scenic rivers. Wilderness and wild and scenic designations will protect this watershed and ensure that hunting and fishing opportunities are protected in the Copper Salmon area. Wilderness designation is popular in the local area, as evidenced by resolutions in favor of it from the Port Orford Chamber of Commerce, the mayor of Port Orford, and the Curry County Commissioners. Additionally, a majority of the guides, lodges and local citizens have supported this proposal. It is time now that we all come together and permanently protect this special place. As Oregon's population grows, I believe that we must match this growth and the corresponding development with protection of our natural heritage. Protection of these areas will ensure that Oregonians and visitors will continue to enjoy opportunities to hike in the wilderness, hunt healthy populations of elk, blacktail deer, black bear, mountain lion and to catch trophy-sized chinook and steelhead. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. I am going to read one paragraph at the outset of the article: Since a new system took effect here last year, cost growth is projected to fall this year to about 3 [percent] after inflation from 4.5 [percent] in 2006. Waiting lists are shrinking, and private health insurers are coming up with innovative ways to care for the sick. What struck Senator Bennett and I is, there is an awful lot of comparison between our bipartisan legislation and the experience of the Dutch. For example, both in Holland and in the United States under our proposal, there would be a requirement that individuals would have to purchase their own health insurance. Insurers under our proposal, as in Holland, would not be able to discriminate against individuals who have had illnesses. We saw in the movie ``Sicko'' that wonderful scene with the ``Star Wars'' music describing all the various conditions that individuals might have that would exclude them from insurance coverage. That would be illegal under what Senator Bennett and I are advocating. It is illegal, according to the Wall Street Journal, in the Netherlands. Finally, in the Netherlands and under our legislation, there is a sharp and specific focus on prevention and wellness. The tragedy in our country is, we don't have health care at all. What we largely have is sick care. Medicare shows this probably more clearly than anything else. Medicare Part A will pay huge expenses for senior citizens' hospital bills. The check goes from the Government to the hospital. But Medicare Part B, on the other hand, will pay for virtually nothing for prevention and keeping people well. Senator Bennett and I seek to change that. For the first time under our legislation, Medicare would be authorized to discount the premiums for seniors who lower their blood pressure, lower their cholesterol, practice good health in their individual lives. I am struck by this Wall Street Journal article, where insurers in Holland are adopting much the same kind of approach. The article states on the front page that insurers now are offering discounts to customers who buy low cholesterol versions of yogurt, butter, and milk. The point is, worldwide the message is getting out. Prevention works. Wellness, a new focus on personal responsibility, and keeping our citizens healthy makes sense. They are doing it in Holland. The Wall Street Journal describes the positive benefits there. I and Senator Bennett, along with our cosponsors, Senators Bill Nelson, Lamar Alexander, and Judd Gregg, are trying to build a bipartisan coalition in the Senate to do exactly the same. Our legislation, the Healthy Americans Act, would require that everyone not on Medicare or in the military would have to purchase private health insurance. But to make sure that is doable, we fix the broken marketplace. Under our legislation, private insurance companies wouldn't be able to cherry-pick. They wouldn't be able to take just healthy people and send sick people over to Government programs more fragile than they are. They couldn't discriminate against those with illnesses. They would have to spread risks through large groups of people. Right now essentially much of the private insurance business is about filtering out those people who have illnesses and finding a way to cover just those who are healthy. Our legislation would change that. We also take critical steps to make sure that if you are going to require that people purchase coverage, you have generous subsidies for folks with modest incomes. What Senator Bennett and I propose--and apparently they are doing something along these lines in Holland--is to subsidize those up to 100 percent of poverty completely and for those between 100 percent of poverty and 400 percent of poverty, there would be a partial subsidy. The most generous subsidies of any program anywhere in our country would be offered under this legislation that we are offering, with Senators Alexander, Gregg, and Nelson of Florida. How do we pay for it? The Lewin Group, which is kind of the gold standard for looking at health policies, scored the administration's approaches, many of the States and ours and said we can find a lot of the savings under our legislation through an administrative process that establishes that once you sign up in Ohio, once you sign up in Oregon or anywhere else in the country, you are in for life. You don't have to sign up again and again and again. In my State, my guess is it is very similar to the situation in Ohio, if you are on Medicaid, there is something like 31 or 32 categories of coverage. A poor person has to try to squeeze themselves into one of those boxes in order to get coverage. It is degrading to the poor and a big waste of money. What Senator Bennett and I have offered is a one-stop process so you sign up once, and everything else from that point on is essentially accomplished through the magical world of electronic transfers. An individual's contribution would be taken out of their paycheck while they are working. Ours is fully funded. There is an opportunity for bipartisan cooperation, particularly should the Bush administration want to assist in this effort. For example, every single economist who has come before the Finance Committee, before the Budget Committee, has talked about the Tax Code as it relates to health care disproportionately favoring the most affluent and rewarding inefficiency at the same time. To put it another way, if you are a high-flying CEO in the United States, if you want to go out and get a designer smile put on your face, you can write off the cost of that service on your taxes. But if you are a hard-working woman without any health plan and a local furniture store, you get nothing. So I and Senator Bennett redirect the current tax expenditures. They are the biggest part of private health care spending. The Lewin Group establishes in their analysis of our report that would ensure we could expand coverage over the next few years without any additional cost to taxpayers. The Lewin Group has said the proposal now being sponsored by five Members of the Senate would slow the rate of growth in health care spending by $1.5 trillion. I know the distinguished Presiding Officer has a great interest in health. We are so pleased he is here because we have worked together on these issues often. It is clear this is the premier domestic issue of our time. A combination of today's demographics with a rapidly aging population, escalating costs, the huge increase in chronic illness, our current health care system is not sustainable. It is not one we can put on automatic pilot and say: Let us run it this way for years and years in the future. The tragedy is with all the wonderful doctors and hospitals and nurses in Ohio and Oregon, all across the country, we are spending enough money on health care to do this job. We are simply not spending it in the right places. To give an idea of how out of whack American health care spending is, for the amount of money we are spending today, $2.3 trillion, 300 million of us in the country, you divide 300 million into $2.3 trillion, and you could go out and hire a doctor for every seven families in the United States and say: Doctor, your job will be for this year to take care of seven families, and we will pay you $200,000 a year. My experience, I say to the Acting President pro tempore, is that when I bring this up to physicians at home in Oregon, they say: Ron, where do I go to get my seven families? It sounds pretty good to be able to get back into the business of practicing medicine again and advocating for my patients rather than going through all this paperwork and bureaucracy and redtape. So we are spending enough on health care today. We are not spending it in the right places. That is what they have begun to change in Holland, according to the Wall Street Journal this week. That is what I and Senator Bennett and our colleagues on both sides of the aisle are seeking to do in the Senate. One last comment, Mr. President. I know there is a hectic schedule for all Senators, and certainly the Senator from Ohio. The question is whether there should be action now or the Congress should simply wait for another Presidential election. Here are the consequences of waiting for several more years. The Census Bureau reported last week that 2.2 million additional Americans were without health insurance between 2005 and 2006. If this Congress waits a couple of years more, we can expect that number to increase and the number without coverage in this country to hemorrhage further. That is a moral abomination, No. 1; and it is going to be costly to taxpayers, No. 2, because those people very often will have to go to hospital emergency rooms to get their coverage. Of course, those bills will be passed on to businesses in Ohio and Oregon and across the country and to our taxpayers. So the costs of delay are very direct and immediate. Second, with respect to employer-based coverage, the new numbers indicate the number of employers offering coverage has now fallen below 60 percent. It is pretty easy to see why, with these double-digit premium hikes, Price Waterhouse says health costs are going to average, this year, a little over 11 percent. A lot of our employers want to do the right thing by their workers and simply cannot offer coverage. If this Congress decides to stand down on the question of overhauling health care and say, ``Let's just wait until 2009,'' you are going to see more businesses in Ohio, in Oregon, and across this country lose coverage. I do not think we ought to sit by and just let our coverage continue to melt away along the lines of these statistics that I mentioned. Finally, on the question of prevention and what Holland is doing, and what we are seeking to do in the Healthy Americans Act, there is a very significant cost with respect to chronic illness as it relates to doing nothing to change our policies. The new numbers with respect to chronic illness indicate that in 31 States over the last year obesity has risen once again; of course, there is a direct link here between heart and stroke and diabetes and so many illnesses. Not one State--not one-- experienced a decline. So if the Congress says: Well, we will pass on overhauling American health care until 2009, we can expect to have missed another opportunity--yet another opportunity--for doing something about enacting health care policies that put a new focus on prevention and wellness. So this question of waiting for 2 more years and saying: Let's just spend our time looking at what the various candidates for President from both political parties are saying about health care--certainly it is getting a lot of attention in terms of debates on TV and all of us trying to look at the various merits of the candidates' proposals; and they are good people; and they have good suggestions--but I want to make it clear to the Senate there are very real costs of waiting to fix health care. I think the question of fixing health care is so urgent we ought to get on with it, and we ought to get on with it in a bipartisan way, which is what I and Senator Bennett are trying to do. We are very proud to have been able to get the support of business and labor leaders. When we offered the initial proposal, Andy Stern, the president of the Service Employees International Union, stood on one side of me, and Steve Burd, the CEO of the Safeway company, a very large Fortune 500 company, stood on the other side. We had individuals such as Ron Pollack, of Families USA, and advocates for compassionate end-of-life health care with us as well. The last time Congress looked at this--and the Acting President pro tempore, I think, remembers this--during a period in the early 1990s, the people who stood with me for the kickoff of the Healthy Americans Act were spending millions to pretty much beat each other's brains out. That was the last time the Congress and the President, during the Clinton years, debated health care. So this is a different climate, certainly a different climate for businesses in Ohio and Oregon. What I hear from businesses at home-- unlike in 1993, the Clinton years, when they said: We cannot afford fixing health care--they are now saying: We cannot afford the status quo. That is why they are joining Senator Bennett and I and others on these proposals. My hope is as Congress looks at the evidence, whether it is the Wall Street Journal reporting on promising developments--very often people think of Europe and socialized countries--the Wall Street Journal is putting on the front page of the paper--a publication that clearly favors private health care coverage--an example of a country in Europe where they seem to be making great progress. So as we devise our own system, one that is uniquely American, I and Senator Bennett want to work with every Member of the Senate--I think I can speak for Senators Bill Nelson, Lamar Alexander, Judd Gregg, and the others we have been talking to--that we think this is the premier domestic issue of our time. Certainly, the conflict in Iraq is the premier national security issue. But the premier domestic issue at home is fixing American health care. I think based on the evidence that comes in every day, we know what needs to be done. Now the question is making sure there is the political will to go forward. I look forward to working with the Acting President pro tempore, who has a great interest in these matters, and all our colleagues. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, Senator Bennett of Utah and I have brought to the Senate the first bipartisan universal health care coverage legislation in more than 13 years. I thought today I would open my remarks on health care in something of a light fashion. There is a brand new study that has recently found Americans are no longer the tallest people in the world. Over the past 50 or so years, the U.S. population has lost that status and now ranks among the shortest among industrialized countries. The Netherlands now holds the honor for the tallest nation. The authors of this new study speculate this change may stem from the fact that most other affluent countries have health care systems that cover their entire population and that particularly healthy lifestyles and healthy diets are also significant factors. Senator Bennett is 6 foot 6. I am 6 foot 4. We would like our country to get its rightful position back as the leader among nations in the height department. We think part of what is going to be necessary to do that, in all seriousness, to make our health policies more health focused rather than just spending on health care, is to adopt some fresh policies. We have been particularly interested this week because the Wall Street Journal, which colleagues know displays a preference for private health care sector solutions, has written a fascinating front page article this week on the special accomplishments in Holland with respect to health care. I have long been of the view that as we look finally to accomplishing what this country has not been able to do for 70 years, which is to get all Americans good quality, affordable health care, we are going to have to devise our own system. It is not going to be possible to import some other country's system of health care to our Nation and pretty much plop it down on the United States and say: This is the way to go. But as the Wall Street Journal said in their article this week, there are some important lessons to learn as it relates to the experience of other countries. I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record this front page article from the Wall Street Journal with respect to health care.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I know we are in morning business. I ask unanimous consent to speak on the health care issue for up to 20 minutes.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, before he leaves the floor, we have seen with Chairman Kennedy over the last 2 minutes why he is so admired by Senators on both sides of the aisle. We have seen how he has engineered critically important bipartisan legislation that helps our working families in the education area. We have heard him speak eloquently about fallen firefighters. We admire them so tremendously in Boston and across the country. Of course, once again, when we think of Senator Warner--I will have more to say about him in the days ahead--Senator Kennedy has spoken for all of us this morning as he talked about how much we value Senator Warner's counseled insight. I want him to know how much I appreciate his leadership and how much I value his counsel in the Senate.

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. The tragedy in Minneapolis last month showed the entire country that our bridges are in desperate need of repair. 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 six 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 is 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 next 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 stagnating wages, the loss of even basic health benefits for many, and a mortgage market that is spiraling downward, the American worker needs relief. 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 is 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. The tragedy in Minneapolis last month showed the entire country that our bridges are in desperate need of repair. 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 six 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 is 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 next 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 stagnating wages, the loss of even basic health benefits for many, and a mortgage market that is spiraling downward, the American worker needs relief. 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 is a chance for the Federal Government to hold up its end of the bargain with our States.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, most of my colleagues are well aware that I have been pushing for a ban on the practice of anonymous holds for several years. I believe that holds are an acceptable parliamentary tactic, but I firmly believe that it is inappropriate for Senators to use them secretly. If Senators wish to object to the consideration of a particular bill or executive nominee, they should be required to do so publicly, so that their objections can be discussed and debated in full view of the American people. Today, I am announcing my objection to any unanimous consent request to bring the nomination of John Rizzo to the Senate floor for approval. The President has nominated Mr. Rizzo to be General Counsel of the Central Intelligence Agency, CIA. When Mr. Rizzo appeared before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence a few weeks ago, I asked him about a now-infamous legal opinion that was prepared by the Department of Justice in 2002. This opinion, commonly known as the ``Bybee memo'' includes shocking interpretations of U.S. torture laws, and essentially concludes that inflicting any physical pain short of organ failure is not torture. Most Americans would agree that this conclusion is over the line, and this is why the Administration revoked the memo as soon as it became public. John Rizzo was the acting general counsel of the CIA at that time, and I asked him if, in hindsight, he wished that he had objected to this memo. I was disappointed to hear him say, even with the benefit of five years' hindsight, that he did not. Much more recently, about 2 weeks ago the President issued an Executive order interpreting Common Article Three of the Geneva Conventions and how it applies to CIA detentions and interrogations. This Executive order refers to classified CIA guidelines. I have read these guidelines, and I believe that they have suffered from a clear lack of effective legal oversight. Since John Rizzo is once again acting general counsel of the CIA, I believe that he bears significant responsibility for this situation. I am not at all convinced that the techniques outlined in these guidelines are effective, nor am I convinced that they stay within the law. The last thing that I want to see is hard-working, well-intentioned CIA officers breaking the law because they have been given shaky legal guidance. These men and women dedicate their lives to serving their country, and they deserve better than that. They deserve to know that they are on firm legal ground when they are doing their jobs, and that they can rely on the legal advice of their general counsel. I should also note that I disagree with the President's decision to interpret the Geneva Conventions as broadly as he did, although this does not excuse Mr. Rizzo from responsibility. The Director of National Intelligence, Mike McConnell, discussed these techniques on television recently and stated that he wouldn't want any Americans to undergo them. I don't think it would be acceptable to use these techniques on Americans either, but the President's new interpretation of the Geneva Conventions says that it is okay for other countries to use them on Americans when they are captured. This is also unacceptable. I believe that you can fight terrorism ferociously without tossing aside American laws and American values, and I worry that the administration and CIA lawyers may be losing sight of this. I was disappointed to hear John Rizzo say that he did not wish he had objected to the 2002 torture memo, and I was even more disappointed when I read these guidelines. Our intelligence agencies cannot fight terrorism effectively unless programs like this one are on a solid legal footing. Mr. Rizzo's record demonstrates that he is prepared to let major programs go forward without a firm legal foundation in place. This is why I have come to the conclusion that John Rizzo is not qualified to be the general counsel of the CIA. I plan to vote against Mr. Rizzo's confirmation in committee, and when it comes to the floor I will object to any unanimous consent agreement to consider his nomination until I am satisfied that our national counterterrorism programs, and particularly the CIA detention program, have the solid legal foundation that they need.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. I thank the chairman from the Senate Finance Committee. I ask unanimous consent to call up my amendment No. 2570, and I send it to the desk with a modification.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I will be very brief. The amendment has been accepted by the leadership on the Senate Finance Committee. We have been talking a lot about health care. We have a lot of health care in our country, but, unfortunately, not enough prevention or wellness. This amendment is designed to deal with epidemic juvenile diabetes. We can effect it by encouraging people to change behavior through personal responsibility with a bipartisan agreement to promote that. I urge its adoption.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, on June 18, I announced my intention to object to any unanimous consent request for the Senate to take up the nomination of Dennis Schrader to be Deputy Administrator for National Preparedness in the Department of Homeland Security. I did so because, prior to his confirmation as Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff told me in my office that if confirmed, he would move expeditiously to implement the National Emergency Technology Guard--NET Guard program. Unfortunately, Secretary Chertoff had failed to honor that pledge. Today, I received a letter from Secretary Chertoff describing how the Department is moving forward with 12-month NET Guard pilots beginning in September 2007, and how the DHS will be requesting funds to continue the program in its 2009 budget request to the Office of Management and Budget. The Secretary also communicated to me that the Department of Homeland Security will be publicizing NET Guard and seeking involvement from the private sector, a step critical to the success of this vital program. The Department has also set aside funds to run the pilots for the year and convened a working group of subject matter experts to guide the design of NET Guard. These activities and Secretary Chertoff's letter indicate that he is making a good-faith effort to get NET Guard off the ground. In light of these actions, I will no longer object to any unanimous- consent request for the Senate to take up Mr. Schrader's nomination. I will, however, continue to closely monitor DHS's actions on NET Guard. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of Secretary Chertoff's letter be printed in the Congressional Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, about a year ago, a group of hardwood plywood manufacturers came to me with a problem, Chinese hardwood plywood imports were threatening their businesses. They raised a whole host of issues, from tariff misclassification to subsidies to fraudulent labeling to illegal logging. These unfair and illegal practices were lowering the costs of the Chinese hardwood plywood imports, giving them an unfair advantage over U.S. hardwood plywood and putting American companies in jeopardy of going out of business and the folks that they employ out of work. Since that time, I have been working to level the playing field for Oregon hardwood plywood manufacturers and protect the jobs of the workers that they employ. I have met with the Department of Commerce, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, Customs and Border Patrol, and the International Trade Commission and urged them to investigate these issues and, where appropriate, act to address them. They have, raising these troubling practices in diplomatic negotiations, opening investigations, and even filing a case before the World Trade Organization targeting Chinese subsidies that benefit the hardwood plywood industry, among others. Today, with the support of industry, labor, and the environmental community, I am proud to introduce the Combat Illegal Logging Act of 2007 to halt the trade in illegal timber and timber products. This act will help to level the playing field, not just for Oregon hardwood plywood manufacturers affected by Chinese imports, but for all American manufacturers across the country struggling to compete against imported, low-priced wood and wood products harvested from illegal sources. Equally important, the act helps address an illegal logging crisis. From the Amazon to the Congo Basin, from Sulawesi to Siberia, illegal logging is destroying ecosystems. It is gutting local economies. It is annihilating ways of life. Because of the speed and violence with which illegal logging is occurring, failing to curb its effects now may result in irreversible damage. The bill that I am introducing today can help curb illegal logging and thwart its devastating consequences. The Lacey Act currently regulates trade in fish, wildlife, and a limited subset of plants by making it unlawful to ``import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, or purchase'' any that are taken, possessed, transported or sold in violation of any State law or, with respect to fish and wildlife only, any foreign law. The Combat Illegal Logging Act of 2007 would expand the Lacey Act so that violations of foreign law that apply to plants and plant products fall within its protections. It would also specify the types of foreign law violations that trigger Lacey Act liability, laws intended to prevent theft or ensure the legal right to harvest the plants. Finally, the act would create a declaration requirement to facilitate the Lacey Act's enforcement for timber without placing an undue burden upon law-abiding businesses. The declaration requirements provide basic transparency for wood shipments. The declaration will have critical value for combating illegal logging by 1. encouraging importers to ask basic questions regarding the origin of their timber and timber products; 2. providing information at the point of import that will allow authorities with limited resources to do efficient, targeted inspections and enforcement; and 3. helping enforcement agents to immediately identify ``low-hanging fruit,'' such as timber expressly prohibited to be exported. The act will definitely change the way that folks who are importing illegally harvested timber and wood products do business, this is its intended purpose. But for the many companies who already play by the rules, the act's requirements should result in minimal changes to the way they operate. Moreover, when the act's impact from a competitiveness standpoint is factored in, the effect is a net positive for these companies. This act changes the incentives to reward due diligence, a sound long-term business strategy from any perspective. This bill is the culmination of hundreds of hours of work by stakeholders that many might view as strange bedfellows. The principal negotiators of the compromise, the American Forest & Paper Association, the Hardwood Federation, and the Environmental Investigation Agency, deserve a tremendous amount of credit for sticking with this and finding a solution that everyone could support. I applaud them for their hard work, the maturity with which they approached the issue, and the respect that they showed each other throughout the process. Their conduct is a model for how things should work in Washington. I would also like to applaud the work of several of my colleagues in the House, Congressman Blumenauer, Congressman Wexler, and Congressman Weller, who introduced their own illegal logging bill, the Legal Timber Protection Act, earlier this year. I understand that their bill may be taken up by the House Natural Resources Committee this fall and I am hopeful that they will substitute the broadly supported text of the Combat Illegal Logging Act for their bill, paving the way for the enactment of this important piece of legislation. I would like to thank Senator Alexander, Senator Kerry, Senator Snowe, and Senator Feingold for agreeing to be original cosponsors of the bill. I would also like to thank the following organizations, in addition to the American Forest & Paper Association, the Hardwood Federation, and the Environmental Investigation Agency for endorsing the bill: Center for International Environmental Law, Conservation International, Defenders of Wildlife, Dogwood Alliance, ForestEthics, Friends of the Earth, Global Witness, Greenpeace, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, National Hardwood Lumber Association, Natural Resources Defense Council, Rainforest Action Network, Rainforest Alliance, Sierra Club, Society of American Foresters, Sustainable Furniture Council, The Nature Conservancy, Tropical Forest Trust, United Steelworkers, Wildlife Conservation Society, World Wildlife Fund. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be inserted in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to hold a hearing during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, July 31, 2007, at 2:30 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on renewable fuels infrastructure.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to hold a hearing during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, July 31, 2007, at 2:30 p.m., in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building. The purpose of this hearing is to examine three major consumer protection and fraud prevention issues under the jurisdiction of the Federal Trade Commission: 1. The effectiveness of the national Do-Not- Call registry and current legislative proposals to improve the Do-Not- Call Implementation Act of 2003; 2. The effectiveness of CROA and possible legislative initiatives to clarify the language of the act; and 3. Telemarketing fraud, particularly against older Americans.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to hold a hearing during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, July 31, 2007, at 10 a.m., in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building. The hearing is on the nominations of Vice Admiral Thomas J. Barrett, USCG (Ret.), to be Deputy Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation, Mr. Ronald Spoehel, to be Chief Financial Officer, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Rear Admiral William G. Sutton, Jr., USN (Ret.), to be Assistant Secretary of Commerce, U.S. Department of Commerce, and Mr. Paul R. Brubaker, to be Administrator of the Research and Innovative Technology Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 31, 2007, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``The State of the Securities Markets.''

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 31, 2007, at 9:30 a.m., in open session (and possibly closed session) to consider the following nominations: Admiral Michael G. Mullen, USN for reappointment to the grade of Admiral and to be Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; and General James E. Cartwright, USMC for reappointment to the grade of General and to be Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy and Consumer Rights be authorized to meet on Tuesday, July 31, 2007 at 10 a.m. in order to conduct a hearing entitled ``The Leegin Decision: the end of the consumer discounts or good antitrust policy'' in room 226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. Witness list: Pamela Jones Harbour, Commissioner, Federal Trade Commission Washington, DC; Robert Pitofsky, Sheehy Professor of Antitrust Law and Regulation, Georgetown University Law School, Washington, DC; Marcy Syms, Chief Executive Officer, SYMS, Secaucus, NJ; Stephan Bolerjack, Attorney at Law, Dykema Gossett PLLC, Representing the National Association of Manufacturers, Detroit, MI; and Janet L. McDavid, Attorney at Law, Hogan & Hartson, Washington, DC.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 31, 2007 at 2:30 p.m. to hold a closed hearing.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, July 31, to conduct a hearing on DoD/VA collaboration and cooperation and the education needs of returning service members. The committee will meet in Dirksen 562, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet in order to conduct a hearing entitled ``Evaluating the Propriety and Adequacy of the Oxycontin Criminal Settlement'' on Tuesday, July 31, 2007, at 2:30 p.m. in the Dirksen Senate Office Building room 226. Witness list: Panel I: John L. Brownlee, United States Attorney, Western District of Virginia, Roanoke, VA; Panel II: Marianne Skolek, LPN, Myrtle Beach, SC; Vikramaditya Khanna, Professor of Law, University of Michigan Law School, Ann Arbor, MI; Sidney M. Wolfe, M.D., Director, Public Citizen's Health Research Group, Washington, DC; Virginia Pagano, Police Officer, Philadelphia Police Department, Narcotics Bureau, Philadelphia, PA; Jay P. McCloskey, Former U.S. Attorney, Maine, McCloskey, Mina, Cunniff & Dilworth, LLC, Portland, ME; James Campbell, M.D., Professor of Neurosurgery, Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, MD.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, July 31, 2007, at 9:30 a.m. in order to hold a hearing on nuclear energy and nonproliferation challenges.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, July 31, 2007, at 10 a.m., in room 215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to hear testimony on ``Carried Interest, Part II.''