Ron Wyden

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Before he leaves the floor, I want to say to the Senator from Oklahoma, who says--and always with a smile--that he and I certainly don't agree on everything in this debate, that the concept of what he is talking about--that physicians spend time with their patients--is certainly a concept that ought to be incorporated into how we proceed in the days ahead. The other aspect of this that people ought to focus on, with respect to what the Senator from Oklahoma is talking about, is that time that the physician spends with the patient in the office presents a pretty good chance that some of those discussions they have there in the office are going to help keep that patient out of the hospital, and all sides ought to see that as a constructive goal. So I want my colleague from Oklahoma to know that in the discussions he and I have had--and I appreciated the way my colleague said with a smile we don't agree on everything--the concept he is talking about with respect to doctors and time in the office--is something that ought to be incorporated into this, and it is my intention to work with my colleague on that.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, as the new chairman of the Senate Finance Committee--16 working days on the job--it is humbling to be parachuted late into the issue of reimbursing doctors for Medicare services, and I intend to be brief here at the outset of this debate. All sides agree that the current system for paying doctors, known as the SGR, does not work well for seniors, the many gifted physicians who serve them, or taxpayers. Devised in 1997, the SGR sets an annual cost target for Medicare physician payments, and it is honored more in the breach than in the observance. When the SGR is not met, the Congress says that is OK, we will just apply a patch and we will punt. Patch it up and let that SGR limp along, just as it has year after year after year. Mr. President and colleagues, there have now been 16 of these patches--16--and every Senator who I talk to says that just defies common sense and it seems bizarre even by Beltway standards. The cost of the patches now resembles the cost of the full repeal. To his great credit, the majority leader, Senator Reid, has repeatedly said his first choice for dealing with this issue is to finally repeal the SGR. Now is the ideal time for repealing SGR. The cost of full repeal is far less than anticipated. Thoughtful, bipartisan work has been done in the House and the Senate on repeal and replace, and leading advocates for seniors and their doctors want to replace the status quo with real reform. So as an alternative to the flawed status quo--an SGR patch No. 17-- this afternoon I will make two unanimous consent requests so that the Senate is allowed to have a choice; specifically, a vote on a proposal to permanently repeal and replace the SGR and also to fund the health care extenders. I will wrap up by briefly describing this proposal. Its essence is to close two chapters of Federal budget fiction. Since the SGR is just pretending that Congress will hold the line on Medicare spending, I believe it is time to end this fiction and wipe SGR off the books. And for balance, I am going to propose ending another piece of budget fiction, specifically the Overseas Contingency Operations, known as OCO, and the spending on wars that are winding down. This too is fiction. As former Republican Senator Jon Kyl said--a conservative by anybody's calculation--during a previous SGR debate, let's use war savings for one last time to wipe out the debt Congress has built up by overriding reductions in payments to doctors, and from that point on war savings would only be used for defense. So there you have my proposal: truth in budgeting all around. Wipe the slate clean on Medicare so you can support seniors and their doctors and move forward with real reforms along the bipartisan lines the House and Senate have already agreed to. I would add that if Congress took the action I just proposed, it could go farther and address the health extenders. Unlike the SGR, these are real programs helping, for example, vulnerable low-income seniors, rural communities, and seniors who need a variety of therapies. Each one of those has strong bipartisan support. This, too, could be addressed in a fiscally responsible manner. A big chunk of the cost of 10 years' worth of these extenders could be addressed with the savings of the 1-year patch. So here is my closing: A lot of good work has gone into a bipartisan, bicameral reform plan that finally repeals and replaces the SGR. I would just say to my colleagues, doesn't that deserve a vote? If my unanimous consent request is accepted, we would have that vote. At this time, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding the previous order with respect to H.R. 4302, following disposition of the Owens nomination, when the Senate resumes legislative session, the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 336, S. 2157; that following the reporting of the bill, the bill be read a third time and the Senate proceed to vote on passage of the bill with no intervening action or debate; and that upon disposition of the bill, the Senate resume consideration of H.R. 4302, as provided under the previous order.

Mr. WYDEN. I object, Mr. President.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding the previous order with respect to H.R. 4302, following disposition of the Owens nomination, when the Senate resumes legislative session, the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 336, S. 2157; that the substitute amendment, which is at the desk, be agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be read a third time and the Senate proceed to vote on passage of the bill with no intervening action or debate; and that upon disposition of the bill, the Senate resume consideration of H.R. 4302 as provided under the previous order.

Mr. WYDEN. I object.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I wish to call for new aid to Eastern Europe to strengthen our allies in the face of Russia's annexation of Crimea. Some of my colleagues have suggested that we can do this by immediately increasing our export of domestically produced and processed liquefied natural gas. I have been cautiously optimistic on the domestic production of this energy source, relying heavily on the need for the environmental regulation of such activities. But in the case of Eastern Europe there is little that we can do domestically to quickly help their situation. For more than a century, America's real power has been exporting the keys to economic growth and security. Therefore, it is time to do something real to bolster Europe's energy security by helping them develop Eastern Europe's substantial natural gas reserves and reduce the leverage Russia has over its energy dependent neighbors. The most powerful tool the United States can give Eastern Europe is not exported natural gas that will not get to Europe for years, if ever. It is empowering our European allies to develop their own energy resources, like the major shale gas deposits in Poland. It is clear that energy--and natural gas in particular--is at the very heart of Russia's influence over that part of the world. Europe is dependent on Russia for nearly one-third of its natural gas. And while countries in Western Europe have had some success in diversifying their energy supplies, as former State Department Special Envoy and Coordinator for International Energy Affairs David Goldwyn testified yesterday, Eastern Europe is still heavily dependent upon Russia for energy. Russia is not above using that dependence as a hammer and has been eager to remind us of that fact. For instance, Moscow shut off the gas lines in 2006 and again in the winter of 2009, leaving millions temporarily without heat. In 2013, when the country of Moldova sought to pursue stronger ties with Europe, Russia's deputy prime minister issued a barely veiled threat to the Moldovans, saying ``we hope you will not freeze.'' As I noted, some have suggested the answer to this problem is to automatically approve natural gas exports from the United States. This position simply ignores the facts about how the gas market actually works. U.S. LNG facilities are not slated to come online until the end of next year, at the earliest, while any new approvals would not provide any natural gas exports for at least several years. Further, unless Congress directed exports to go to Ukraine, the gas would go to the country paying the highest price, which would likely be in Asia. I support the Energy Department's current, measured process for considering export requests. The Energy Department has already approved more than 9 billion cubic feet per day of exports, which exceeds what most analysts believe is the current international market for U.S. natural gas. It is helping our European allies bolster their energy security by developing the major shale gas deposits in Poland and elsewhere. United States entrepreneurs triggered the shale revolution with a combination of innovation and technical know-how. This created tens of thousands of jobs and produced stable energy supplies that are 50 percent cleaner than traditional fossil fuels. It helped us with our energy security and it can do the same for Europe. That is exactly what we should be doing to help NATO allies that are justifiably worried following Russia's illegal actions in Ukraine. So what I am proposing today is to increase funding for a State Department program that helps spur natural gas development abroad. My commonsense amendment would direct $10 million within the Economic Support Fund toward the Unconventional Gas Technical Engagement Program to help Eastern European countries develop the regulations and technical expertise they need to access their own gas. Let me be clear--this assistance would go to countries, like Poland, that have asked for American help to harness their own gas reserves. I am aware that Europe is having its own debate about shale gas, and this amendment would not force any nation to participate. In doing so, it will help our European allies throw off the yoke of dependence on Russian gas. I want to be clear that this amendment cannot free Eastern Europe from Russian influence. Russia has other ways of bullying its neighbors economically. Moscow temporarily banned imports from Ukraine, for example, and it also banned imports of Moldovan wine--a very significant part of Moldova's economy. This is clearly only one step of many needed to send a message to President Putin. But as the former chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee I know that a stable energy supply is the lifeblood of any economy and a very important component to a secure nation. I believe there is bipartisan support for America to give our allies the tools they need to become more secure and less dependent on the whims of Mr. Putin.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, the U.S. Supreme Court will soon hear arguments on the Tenth Circuit's overly expansive decision to allow a secular, for-profit corporation's owners or shareholders to impose their religious beliefs on employees by denying female employees access to preventive health care, including insurance coverage for contraception. As detailed in the amicus brief filed by myself and 18 fellow Senators in January, Congress never intended such a broad and unprecedented expansion of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, RFRA, to deny women access to health care benefits. We urged the Court to clarify that RFRA does not allow for-profit companies to deny health coverage to employees based on the religious objections of the company's owners. It should be clear that the Tenth Circuit's decision runs counter to a plain-text reading of RFRA and the law's extensive and informative legislative history. Congress passed RFRA to advance a single, limited purpose: to restore the compelling-interest test to government actions that burden the free exercise of religion. But the test only extended free-exercise rights only to individuals and religious, non-profit organizations. No Supreme Court precedent had extended free-exercise rights to secular, for-profit corporations. Congress enacted the Affordable Care Act with full understanding of RFRA--and of its limited purpose. Congress also recognized the need to balance the government's compelling interest in extending women's access to preventive health care with respect for the traditional free- exercise rights of individuals and religious organizations, which is why Congress included the Affordable Care Act's religious exemptions for individuals and religious organizations. These exemptions strike such a balance precisely and accurately, and appropriately recognize the free-exercise rights Congress intended for RFRA to protect. It's unacceptable and inappropriate for bosses at for-profit corporations to pick and choose which health care services their employees can receive. So far, 360,000 Oregon women have benefited from expanded access to preventive services, including contraceptives. Women's health choices should be made between them and their doctors-- not their bosses.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to talk about the Medicare Program, which of course, is a lifeline--a guarantee for 50 million older Americans. In particular what the Senate wants to do is make sure that those older people have access to primary care doctors, nurse practitioners, specialists, and other providers in their local communities because they provide critically needed care to our seniors day in and day out. Many of those seniors have no idea that by March 31--just a few weeks from now--Congress has to act on their behalf to preserve access to the care that seniors depend on. Suffice it to say those providers would much rather be delivering the care than waiting for this Congress to act. Now, fortunately, there is a roadmap for getting this done--getting good care to seniors not just for a short period of time but, I say to my colleagues, once and for all. And I wish to this afternoon urge my colleagues to seize this opportunity. Beginning my remarks, I declare I can take little credit for the opportunity before us. The path that got us here, that got us started in the effort to make the needed reforms to protect our seniors, is a direct result of the leadership of my friend and colleague Senator Orrin Hatch. Just as Senator Hatch has done so many times over the course of an illustrious career, he was key to forging a bipartisan solution to a challenging, longstanding problem. So what I would like to do in the beginning is to recognize that effort by Senator Hatch; my predecessor as chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Baucus; House Ways and Means chairman Dave Camp; House Ways and Means Ranking Member Sander Levin; House Energy and Commerce chairman Fred Upton; and House Energy and Commerce Ranking Member Henry Waxman. The work they have been doing over the last few months is exceptional. In effect, they have given us the opportunity to take this flawed system of setting a kind of Medicare budget known as SGR--sustainable growth rate--they have given us the opportunity to repeal and replace this flawed system with one that I think is going to make a huge difference in the days ahead by pushing up the goal of good-quality affordable care and doing it in a bipartisan way. I hope these colleagues will take it as a compliment that the SGR bill now before the Senate incorporates all of that good bipartisan work they have been doing, along with the work that was done on the Senate Finance Committee. I see our colleague from North Carolina, who has contributed mightily to that effort, as well as, of course, the Presiding Officer of the Senate Senator Brown, who has been such an eloquent spokesperson, particularly for those without political power and political clout. I thank both of them for their efforts. To be specific, the legislation I introduced last night incorporates what those six Members agreed to--the six Members I just named, the three Democrats and the three Republicans--in S. 2000. In effect, that legislation, along with the health extenders passed by the Senate Finance Committee in S. 1871, is essentially what we have the opportunity to move in the days ahead. Every single item in this bill has strong bipartisan support, and I hope we can all come together and with resounding bipartisan support get this bill passed before March 31. There are a variety of reasons why Democrats and Republicans, in my view, can band together and repeal and replace what I have characterized as a flawed, really dysfunctional system we have today known as the SGR, but before I go through the list of reasons, I wish to make clear to my colleagues--colleagues who know me--that I am interested in sound, sensible policy and that we move in a bipartisan way--not politics, not message, but sound policy. That is why I am here on the floor today. I have always tried to make it possible for both sides to secure their principles--principles that are important to them--and still allow us to go forward in a bipartisan and innovative fashion to get things done. I will say to my colleagues, it is not possible any longer to just put one patch or another up and say we are going to fix the Medicare challenge. It is not going to work. For the last 10 years Congress has always blocked these cuts. So I say it is time to stop pretending these upcoming cuts--fittingly scheduled for April Fools' Day--are any more real than the 16 times the Congress has intervened. What we ought to do, I say to my colleagues, is stop playing Medicare make believe. It is time to set aside a flawed formula that prevents the Congress from really moving ahead constructively on Medicare and to start with a clean slate. I thought the Wall Street Journal editors really summed it up very well on February 19. In talking about the bipartisan bill I laud tonight, the editors of the Wall Street Journal said: ``Simply pass the bill as is and forgo the pretense of fake-paying for it.'' We need to think about those words. The editors of the Wall Street Journal basically said this is all a bunch of fakery because the cuts aren't going to be made, the savings aren't going to be realized, because we have tried that route. So the Wall Street Journal said pass this good bipartisan bill. If the Congress fails to fully repeal the flawed Medicare payment formula now, I believe there will be cuts to other providers-- hospitals, home health care providers, drug companies, skilled nursing facilities. Make no mistake about it. Those providers are going to be the ones who pay for yet another patch. So a lot of this budget fakery isn't real, but the people who are going to pay for the patch are going to face very real cuts. In total, the 16 bandaid patches have already cost $150 billion. That is the same cost as fully repealing and replacing the flawed SGR plus taking care of the health extenders. Those cuts, as I have indicated, have largely been paid for in the past by cuts to other providers. In the last 2 years alone, the hospitals have been forced to produce nearly $30 billion to pay for the temporary patches. Under the status quo, the SGR will always call for cuts that are too steep for providers to bear and Congress will step in with yet another patch paid for by still more cuts to other providers. How can we make a case for more of the same, especially when we have an opportunity to not only repeal the flawed formula but also to enact reforms that finally move Medicare away from the flawed fee-for-service approach that rewards quantity instead of quality and value? Second, I offered the Medicare SGR Repeal and Beneficiary Access Improvement Act of 2014 in order to eliminate the ongoing threat to our seniors and the providers who serve them. Under this legislation, which reflects the bipartisan, bicameral legislation Senator Hatch and Senator Baucus offered last month, physicians would receive annual payment increases of .5 percent for 5 years. The following 5 years physicians would not receive automatic increases but, rather, would be eligible for payment increases based on performance. Medicare would transition to a new focus--on greater equality, value, and accountability. This legislation would strengthen Medicare physician payments in a number of ways. It would reward the quality of care. It would improve payment accuracy. It would expand the coordination of care for patients with chronic care needs. It would encourage participation in alternative models of payment. The bill addresses other critical Medicare and Medicaid issues. They are known as health care extenders. With these extenders, it would be possible for the Congress on a bipartisan basis to ensure that low- income seniors can have affordable Medicare premiums and guarantees that beneficiaries will have access to the therapies they need. Under the bill, rural beneficiaries will have the security of knowing the hospitals and physicians will be there when they need them. I know rural health care, for my friend from North Carolina, my friend from Iowa, and the Senator from Ohio, is a priority. If we pass this bill, which was put together by the bipartisan group in the House and Senate, we give a big boost for rural health care and the services seniors depend on under Medicare. Finally, something I am especially proud of because Senator Grassley was good enough to work with me for a number of years on it is this would significantly expand Medicare transparency. This legislation would open Medicare's treasure trove of payment data and patients would have the information they need to make informed choices about their care. Researchers and professionals will have the data needed to develop evidence-based methods. So this afternoon, in addition to thanking the colleagues I have already mentioned, I thank Senator Grassley for all of those years working with me. Senator Harkin knows Senator Grassley has been a strong advocate for transparency in health care and other vital services, and we see his good work in this bill. This bill is bipartisan. It doesn't cut providers or increase cost- sharing for seniors. I defer to my colleagues to decide if it is better to offset the costs of SGR repeal by reducing future war spending or unpaid for, but the bottom line is the same: We ought to act now. We should act now and put this flawed formula known as the SGR, which has produced Medicare migraines for frustrated providers and seniors alike, behind us. Every single thing in the bill I offer today has strong bipartisan support, and it represents a compromise. I know this isn't an easy vote for colleagues on either side of the aisle, but I submit that it sure means we will be able to accomplish what we were sent here to do--to find a way to do what is best for seniors and the doctors who care for them. With that clean slate--and I have enjoyed talking to the Presiding Officer about this because I think what this bill is all about is doing what is right for seniors, doing what is right for the doctors, setting in place a plan for the future that ensures seniors are going to get better care that in many instances will cost less. That is what I hope Senators will take home after we break tomorrow for the work period. This is a chance to do what is best for seniors, what is best for doctors, and what is going to pay off for taxpayers in the long run. Nobody wins with Medicare make believe. After these 16 patches, when we have the Wall Street Journal editors joining with seniors and providers and we have a bill that has strong bipartisan support, I think this is the kind of measure Senators ought to flock to. I will close by saying we all know the public is frustrated with a fair amount of what happens in the Congress, and there is a fair level of disappointment. The Senator from North Carolina and I were talking about a variety of issues on this point this morning. But I look around this Chamber and I see Senators who have spent a significant amount of time in public life, and a number of colleagues who are on the floor, I am old enough to remember joining them in the other body before we came to the Senate, and we are here for a purpose. We are here to get things done. On this Medicare issue, which suffice it to say has been one of the most polarizing in the American public debate--in fact, I would venture to say that on the domestic side of the budget, there are few issues that have been as divisive and polarizing as Medicare--this is an opportunity, colleagues, to check the partisanship at the door, come together, and set in place a new system of paying providers under Medicare that is going to produce better quality at lower costs. We ought to support it in a bipartisan manner. With that, I yield the floor.

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

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

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, earlier this evening I touched on the numbers that underlie this debate--the numbers from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the numbers from the National Academy of Sciences--and said they really drive me to the judgment that climate change is the scientific equivalent of a speeding Mack truck. But I believe numbers don't really capture this discussion fully because what people want to know is the impact of climate change in their community, what it truly means for them in their part of the country. To get into those impacts, I will start with one that is shellacking my home State; that is, the wildfires that are burning longer, getting hotter, and starting earlier. Drought and high temperatures from climate change are driving all of this. During the early part of this past year's fire season, intense wildfires once again burned across the Western United States, threatening population centers and destroying hundreds of homes. This winter, fires have already burned in western Oregon--something that used to be very rare. The number of houses that have burned in our country from wildfires has increased a staggering 400 percent in only the past couple of years and is projected to get far worse. In 2012, 2 percent of my home State of Oregon burned in just one summer and nearly 1.5 million acres burned across the Pacific Northwest. Wildfires, of course, have always been part of life in my home State, but the fires of recent years are getting hotter and are significantly more threatening to homes. Our country's top scientists say the conditions that caused these recent fire seasons to become more severe, including drought accompanied by above-average temperatures, are more common now due to human-induced climate change. Over the past 30 years the fire season has become 2\1/2\ months longer and both the number and severity of forest fires in the American West have increased several-fold. Scientists who have examined this issue say climate change is a significant factor behind it. To their credit, the Obama administration has indicated that they want to work with Senators of both political parties to tackle this issue. In particular, what they have suggested--and Senator Crapo, the Republican Senator from Idaho, and I have pushed this strongly--is that instead of shorting the prevention fund, which is the heart of the problem--we have to go in and thin out these overstocked stands-- instead of shorting the prevention fund, which is what happens every year now, because these fires are so big and so hot, what happens is the bureaucracy comes in and takes money from the prevention fund in order to suppress the fires, and the problem, of course, gets worse because we don't have the funds for prevention. The administration wants to work with Democrats and Republicans in the Senate and in the other body so that the most serious fires--only the most serious ones--get handled from the disaster fund. We believe this is going to free up additional support for efforts to prevent these fires, and that will be beneficial to our communities. Second, I would like to focus on power sector vulnerability. The drought and high temperatures that can lead to the wildfires and make our power grid more vulnerable also raise the question of the implications for our grid and for taxpayers. Much of that vulnerability comes from changes in water supply and water temperature. Water plays two critical roles in generating electricity. Water is needed for generating hydropower--something we do a lot of in the Pacific Northwest. It is also needed for cooling in many other types of generation, such as nuclear, biomass, and coal. For those generators, water must not only be available in sufficient quantities, but it has to be cool enough to allow the plants to run safely and efficiently. That means climate change poses a double threat to some of these facilities. This is not a hypothetical situation; recent history has already shown the power sector's vulnerability to both drought and high temperatures. In 2001, for example, severe drought in the Pacific Northwest and California significantly reduced hydroelectric generation, causing tight electricity supplies and high prices throughout the West. That drought was estimated to have an economic impact of between $2.5 billion and $6 billion. High temperatures have also made water too hot to actually be able to cool some powerplants. In 2007 the Tennessee Valley Authority had to temporarily shut down its Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant because the intake water temperatures were too high. In 2012 the Millstone nuclear plant that powers half of Connecticut had to take 40 percent of its capacity offline for almost 2 weeks because the cooling water it was getting from Long Island Sound was too warm. In that same year the Braidwood nuclear facility in Illinois had to get an exemption to use intake water that was 102 degrees instead of shutting down during a heat wave. When somebody has their air-conditioning on high because it is over 100 degrees, that is not a time that we can afford to be taking a base load powerplant offline. So far it has been possible to get through the heat- and drought- related shutdowns of these powerplants without major outages, but let's make no mistake about it--the ratepayers have definitely felt them in their power bills. In Texas during the summer of 2011, for example, electricity was selling on the spot market for $3,000 per megawatt hour--well over 100 times the normal rate. Next I would like to talk about the effects of climate on energy infrastructure. The power sector isn't the only bit of energy infrastructure that is vulnerable to climate change. Recently, I--along with the majority leader, Senator Reid, Senator Franken, Senator Harkin, and Senator Mark Udall--asked the Government Accountability Office to look into the effects of climate change on energy infrastructure. That report was just released. What the Government Accountability Office found is that climate changes are projected to affect infrastructure throughout all major stages of the energy supply chain--of course, once again increasing the risk of energy disruption. In addition to power sector vulnerabilities, the GAO also found vulnerabilities among the infrastructure for producing and extracting natural resources, including oil and gas platforms, refineries, and processing plants. This infrastructure is often located near the coast, making it vulnerable to severe weather and sea level rise. Fuel transportation and storage infrastructure, including pipelines, barges, railways, and storage tanks, are also susceptible to damage from severe weather, melting permafrost, and increased precipitation. I close by outlining some of the steps that can actually be taken to deal with these issues. I am sure people who are following this discussion tonight are saying: All right, they are making a good case about the nature of the problem. So what else. What comes next in terms of our ability to take action to deal with this. I have said before that there are a host of areas where we are going to have to work in a global kind of manner to build support with other countries for tackling climate change, but there is no question that this Senate can put points on the board this year in the fight against climate change. I am very pleased to have been able to work with our colleague Senator Murkowski, the ranking Republican on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, over this past year. Until recently I served as chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and we were able to pass a major law to spur development of hydropower, which is one of America's forgotten renewables. Hydropower already makes up two- thirds of our country's renewable power, so this is obviously a vital renewable source of energy. Our legislation makes it easier to put hydro on existing dams, irrigation canals, and conduits, and we believe it is going to spark big investments in clean renewable power. The National Hydropower Association estimates that there are 60,000 megawatts of potential new hydropower in our country yet to be harnessed. In addition, our committee passed an important bill to cut redtape associated with developing geothermal power on public lands. My colleagues and I urge the administration to take steps to have tools at their disposal to invest in energy efficiency and use the savings to pay for those upgrades. I look forward, here on the floor of the Senate, to being able to pass what I would call the platonic ideal of consensus energy legislation; that is, the bill that has been sponsored by our colleagues, Senator Shaheen and Senator Portman. I am very pleased that we had a promising development over the past few weeks where we brought together those who care about trying to promote clean and renewable energy in Federal buildings. We have been able to get common ground between Senators of differing views. I look forward to seeing that bill, the Shaheen-Portman bill, on the floor of the Senate. The fact is a number of our renewable energy sources have been on a roll over the past several years, demonstrating their potential. For example, onshore wind has installed tens of thousands of megawatts of capacity in recent years when the policy support has been in place. As expected, the costs have come down with technology improvements, experience, economies of scale, and as a deep domestic supply chain has built up to manufacture all of the components of the wind turbines and towers. The policy support has been working, and wind is now knocking at the door of competitiveness with fossil technologies. Offshore wind is also picking up steam, even off the coast of my home State, where the waters have always been too deep for offshore wind to be possible. A company called Principle Power is trying to solve that problem by demonstrating floating offshore wind turbines just off the coast of Coos Bay in my home State. Putting a turbine on a floating platform instead of mounting it on a tower on the ocean floor has the potential to dramatically change the potential for offshore wind. It would let developers tap into the huge windy resource above the deep waters off the coast of Oregon and elsewhere but without the footprints on the ocean floor and without affecting views from the coast. It is a promising technology, but, like all first-of-a-kind technology, it is going to cost a bit more. That is why we ought to get policy support-- so we can realize the potential of commercial-scale energy. Finally, the costs of solar power have also been dropping like a rock. The potential for sustainable biomass to provide a quadruple win of low-carbon energy, increased forest health, reduced danger of forest fires, and economic growth is still there waiting to be fully developed. I wish to touch on two remaining issues, and one is before the Senate Finance Committee. It is my strong view that the tax treatment of all energy production in the United States ought to be modified so that all energy sources compete on a technology-neutral level playing field. That ought to be one of the major goals of comprehensive tax reform, which, in my view, is really the grand bipartisan prize for Senate Finance Committee members. In the short-term, we have another challenge. We shouldn't let the renewable energy industries that are so important simply fall off the cliff just when the supply chains have been developed and just when they are reaching a level of competitiveness where they can really take off. It is my hope that it is possible to work in a bipartisan way. I intend to talk to Senator Hatch, the ranking Republican on the Finance Committee, and colleagues on both sides of the aisle to work on a tax extenders package that includes a variety of clean energy and efficiency credits. Senator Hatch and I have been interested in moving forward this spring through the regular order and markup of this kind of energy package in the Finance Committee. I will close by talking about natural gas because to capture all of the climate benefits we also have to factor in the dramatic shale gas revolution. We understand that natural gas has turned the energy equation upside down over the past few years. Along the way, it has provided a low-cost way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions at the same time. Increased usage of natural gas has helped our country to reach its lowest level of greenhouse gas emissions since 1994, even as the economy has been picking up steam. Manufacturing and industrial operations have been moving back to the United States to take advantage of cheap reliable gas. This is good news that was almost unimaginable just a few years ago, but we have some major challenges as well. I am concerned that methane emissions from leaky compressors and leaky pipes could undermine the emission benefits of natural gas in a way that isn't being accounted for. A recent report which showed a leakage rate of just 3 percent through the entire natural gas supply chain can make burning natural gas the same as burning coal from a climate perspective. So I have been pushing hard with colleagues here in the Senate to keep that leakage rate below 1 percent from production to usage to make sure that climate benefits come to reality. There are technologies that can address the issue of leakage, and they already exist. They can be put in place at almost no net cost, with many of the measures paying for themselves. There has been a comprehensive survey of the measures for reducing methane leaks through the natural gas supply and usage chain, and it found emissions could be reduced by 40 percent with technologies that already exist and are practical today. The scale of this problem is, of course, immense, and it is what Senators are talking about here tonight. It is going to take everyone pulling together at every level to make the meaningful changes actually happen. We are going to need continued leadership from our entrepreneurs, who aren't sitting idly by but are innovating to come up with solutions to climate change. We are going to need savvy consumers demanding lower carbon and more efficient goods and services. We will need leadership from retailers who are going to ask more of their suppliers and supply chains to give them products to sell to those consumers. Of course, the key is always innovation in the private sector--the private-sector leaders working with our national labs and universities. I am especially proud that my home State of Oregon is going to lead the State efforts in trying to promote sustainability, renewables, and efficiency at the local level. To wrap up my remarks, let me state the obvious. It is going to take new leadership from the Congress. The Congress is going to have to lead if we are going to get a long-term framework for a low-carbon economy that innovators, entrepreneurs, and others can use in the days ahead to address the global nature of this problem, and I think we are up to it here in the Senate. I think we are up to doing it in a bipartisan way, and that is what I look forward to being part of in the days ahead. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank Senator Schatz for all the work he did to put together this effort tonight. I simply want to say that when you look at the data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the National Academy of Sciences, I believe you reach a blunt judgment: Climate change is the scientific equivalent of a speeding Mack truck. So tonight it is appropriate that Senators start getting into these issues with practical approaches. We have done our part in a bipartisan effort to promote hydropower. I am very pleased the President has a new approach in terms of dealing with wildfire, which is also bipartisan, because fires we are seeing are getting bigger and hotter, and there are steps we can take to deal with those urgent problems. This evening is all about sensible action. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. This bill is clearly within the jurisdiction of the Senate Finance Committee, because it changes the Tax Code. For many months before I became the Chair of the committee, the Finance Committee staff, on a bipartisan basis, worked very hard and very comprehensively in a thoughtful way to address this issue, interviewing 28 IRS employees and reviewing approximately 500,000 pages of documents. It is my hope--and again, I have been the Chair of the committee for only a little bit over 1 week--it is my hope and expectation that our report will be ready for release next month or in early April. The Finance Committee, as I have indicated, is the committee of jurisdiction. It has the technical resources, the expertise, and experience to best fashion the appropriate remedies. My view is these matters are simply too important to be handled on the floor without the opportunity for the Finance Committee to address these issues, examine them in hearings, and to have meaningful debate. The Senator from Arizona believes that the new rules from the IRS are not fair because they limit the public debate. I want to indicate to him and to our colleagues that I don't take a back seat to anybody in terms of promoting public debate. Free speech and fair treatment for all Americans--all Americans--in the political process is absolutely central to what I believe government ought to be all about. I have tried, with our colleague from Alaska, Senator Murkowski, to show that even in these difficult, polarizing political times, the parties can come together. Senator Murkowski puts it very well in terms of what the future ought to be all about. It truly embodies our campaign disclosure bill--which, I would mention, is the first bipartisan campaign finance bill in the Senate since the days of McCain-Feingold. Senator Murkowski says it best when she says that what she wants, with respect to the rules for political debate in this country, is the ``even-steven'' rule. She wants to make sure the same principles that apply to the NRA apply to the Sierra Club, so that all Americans, in the course of political debates, are treated fairly. Also, we both believe that shining a light on the dark money that pulses through the American political system is not going to inhibit free speech. To the contrary, it is going to enhance the public's right to know about who is behind the political ads that bombard them during the political season without accountability or transparency. I agree with Justice Scalia when he said: Requiring people to stand up in public for their political acts fosters civic courage, without which democracy is doomed. So there are two reasons for my objection. First, the Finance Committee is the committee of jurisdiction that ought to have the opportunity to address these questions, and I want to assure my friend from Arizona--whom I have worked with many times on issues--that having just become the Chair, I intend to work very expeditiously on this matter, particularly with Senator Hatch. Second, I point out to my colleagues on the floor there is a bipartisan opportunity in the days ahead to address many of these issues. It is embodied very eloquently by Senator Murkowski, who says: If we are going to be serious about promoting the widest possible debate in this country and treating everyone fairly, we do it in accord with that even-steven principle. For those reasons, I object at this time to the unanimous consent request. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN. Reserving the right to object, Madam Chair.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, earlier this month, Oregonians-- and indeed all those who cherish America's natural treasures--lost one of their most ardent champions, Tim Lillebo. Today, I wish to join his wife Karen, his father Tom and a multitude of friends and colleagues in mourning the passing of this true son of Oregon. Tim will be remembered as someone with a deep-felt love of Oregon's magnificent wild places. Those of us in Congress who had the honor to meet Tim and get to know him were impressed by his vast knowledge of Oregon, his personal history as a timber faller and an unmatched passion for Oregon's mountains and rivers. He was not your stereotypical lobbyist. More comfortable in hiking boots than wing-tips, Tim would have much rather been out hunting elk in the Strawberry Mountains than tracking down Members of Congress. He was, in many ways, like former President Teddy Roosevelt--someone who liked to test himself against the elements, whether it was rowing down the John Day or Owyhee rivers or hiking into the Oregon's backcountry to camp among his beloved Ponderosa Pines. Tim Lillebo was uniquely suited to help heal the differences between rural and urban residents. As a product of both Prairie City in Eastern Oregon and Salem in Western Oregon, he was at home on either side of the mountains, simultaneously maintaining a local's knowledge of the backcountry and an insider's perspective of the legislative process. Tim and I did not always see eye-to-eye on forest management policies. But our differences were never personal, never acrimonious. He could disagree but was never disagreeable. As issues relating to Federal forests management changed, Tim adapted. He helped plan thoughtful restoration projects that improved forest health and protected rural communities, and did it with an air of collaboration. Without sacrificing his convictions and wilderness advocacy, he led by example in proving there were sometimes agreements in this often divisive issue. When he testified for my original Eastside Oregon forestry bill, he made it very clear that he strongly supported legislation to increase thinning restoration projects and at the same time it was necessary to protect old growth. One of those projects, the Glaze Meadow restoration project outside Sisters, OR, would not have gotten off the ground if Tim had not done the heavy lifting. I will miss Tim Lillebo, both his wise counsel and his ready smile, along with his love of our State and his ability to bring people together to solve difficult problems. Our country could use more citizens like Tim. On behalf of his family and friends, and his fellow Oregonians, I want to express my profound appreciation for the life and labors of Tim Lillebo.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources will meet on February 13, 2014, at 10 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of the Business Meeting is to consider the following nominations. Rhea S. Suh, to be the Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks; and Janice M. Schneider, to be an Assistance Secretary of the Interior, Land and Minerals Management. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150, or by email to sam_fowler@energy.senate.gov. For further information, please contact Sam Fowler at (202) 224-7571.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on Energy of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Wednesday, February 12, 2014, at 2:30 p.m., in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of this oversight hearing is to consider lessons for federal policy from state efficiency and renewable programs. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record may do so by sending it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, D.C. 20510-6150, or by e-mail to Danielle_Deraney@energy.senate.gov. For further information, please contact Kevin Rennert at (202) 224- 7826 or Danielle Deraney at (202) 224-1219.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, before he leaves the floor, I would like to make a few comments about Senator Baucus. Our part of the world has sent to the Senate some of our most distinguished and thoughtful Members. The great Pacific Northwest sent Wayne Morse from my home State to the Senate and Warren Magnuson and Scoop Jackson of Washington State. I note that Senator Cantwell is here. Frank Church of Idaho was sent to Washington, and, of course, Mike Mansfield, Senator Baucus's mentor and pioneer in terms of promoting closer relations between our country and Asia. It is very fitting that this afternoon Max Baucus joins that very special group of Senators from our part of the United States. Second, I wish to caution Senators on one point, and the distinguished Senator from Utah and I have had a little bit of a laugh about this. Max is exceptionally friendly, and he always tells Senators: Our paths are going to cross again. I look forward to working with you in the days ahead. And Senator Hatch and I just want everyone here in the Senate: However close you are to Senator Baucus, that doesn't mean every Senator can insist that Max come back from China to talk about the latest twist in the debate about currency manipulation or some other issue. The last point I want to mention is a personal one. When you are here in the Senate for more than three decades, you deal with scores of bills and amendments, and you talk about coalitions that were built to pass measures that needed to be passed, and from time to time you have to build a coalition to stop something that shouldn't be passed. But what I want to do--out of those thousands of bills and thousands of amendments--is talk about a special Baucus commitment that was especially important to me; that is, the needs of senior citizens. Max Baucus had some particularly celebrated wins in the fight for seniors--something in which the Presiding Officer of the Senate is very involved. The reality is that the person who did more to stop the privatization of Social Security here on the floor of the Senate was Max Baucus. He was the one who led the coalition. He reached out to Senators on both sides and said: Look, of course we need to save more for private retirement savings, but we are going to do that on top of Social Security, not as a replacement for Social Security. So Senator Baucus was there building that coalition, making the case for why this special program, this intergenerational program has been so important for our country. What I remember best about Senator Baucus and seniors, though, is when the Finance Committee blew the whistle on some of these ripoffs in supplements sold to older people, and eventually these supplements really became the delivery system for Medicare as we know it in much of the country. Senator Cantwell and I, of course, know of the Medicare Advantage Program. We would have hearings in the Finance Committee where we would hear about efforts in the private sector to sell health insurance to seniors that was not worth the paper on which it was written. I remember--kind of bringing my Gray Panther roots into the cause--talking to Max about this change and that change, and it would get pretty dense pretty quickly. Max just said: This is wrong. This is wrong, to rip senior citizens off this way. And we were able to get those changes. The consumer protections Max Baucus locked into the law for the Nation's vulnerable seniors essentially remain the protections of today that are used as the model for senior rights. Senator Cantwell and I, since we are both on the committee, also know that in the budget discussions, when it came time for hard choices, Max always made it a priority to stand up for what are known as the dual eligibles--the seniors who are the most vulnerable, the seniors who don't have political action committees and don't have clout and can't participate in all of what we normally think of as today's politics, from fundraising to all of the grassroots work. I will close by saying that when you see somebody week in and week out stand for the most vulnerable people in society, such as those dual eligibles, you learn a lot about what a person feels strongly about, what values are important to them. So I want to close by saying that when we talk about the Senators from our part of the world--and Senator Cantwell remembers so well the legendary Warren Magnuson and Scoop Jackson and Frank Church, who, by the way, was chair of the Senate Select Committee on Aging. I met him for the first time when I was director of the Gray Panthers and had a full head of hair and good looks. Max was always on those issues, year after year after year. I hope today, as we reflect on his contributions and certainly all the bills and amendments he offered in the Senate Finance Committee, people will also remember that there is a reason Max belongs with those distinguished Senators I mentioned from the Pacific Northwest. It is because he had a heart for people, he had a heart for seniors, and he had the values that represent the best in public service. With that, Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources on Tuesday, February 4, 2014, at 10 a.m., in Room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the nominations of Ms. Rhea S. Suh, to be Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks, Department of the Interior, and Ms. Janice M. Schneider to be Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals Management, Department of the Interior. Because of the limited time available for the business meeting, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, 304 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC, 20510-6150, or by email to ian_nicholson@energy.senate.gov. For further information, please contact Sam Fowler at (202) 224-7571 or Ian Nicholson at (202) 224-7143.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Thursday, February 6, 2014, at 9:30 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on S. 1784, the Oregon and California Land Grant Act of 2013, and S. 1966, the National Forest Jobs and Management Act of 2014. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record may do so by sending it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150, or by e-mail to John_Assini@energy.senate.gov. For further information, please contact Michele Miranda at (202) 224- 7556 or John Assini at (202) 224-9313.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Tuesday, January 28, at 10 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on S. 1600, the Critical Minerals Policy Act of 2013. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, 304 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC, 20510-6150, or by email to Dave_Berick@energy.senate.gov. For further information please contact David Berick at (202) 224- 2209, Megan Brewster (202) 224-6689, or Brian Hughes, (202) 224-7555.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Thursday, January 30, 2014, at 9:30 a.m., in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of this oversight hearing is to explore opportunities and challenges associated with lifting the ban on U.S. crude oil exports. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record may do so by sending it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC, 20510-6150, or by e-mail to Lauren_Goldschmidt@energy .senate.gov. For further information, please contact Todd Wooten at (202) 224- 3907, Abigail Campbell at (202) 224-4905, or Lauren Goldschmidt at (202) 224-5488.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce a bill to protect valuable water resource infrastructure across the West. I am pleased to be joined by Senators Schatz and Feinstein who share my concern for dam safety. The Bureau of Reclamation's Dam Safety Program is not a new program, but it is vital for farmers, local economies, and communities in 17 Western States. Because the Safety of Dams, SOD Program is running out of money, it is essential that Congress extend the program and allow projects to proceed by permanently authorizing the funding needed. The SOD Program has a straightforward mission: ``to ensure that Reclamation facilities do not present unreasonable risks to the public, public safety, property, and/or the environment.'' The challenge of meeting that mission is complicated by the strains of aging infrastructure and population growth within dam failure zones. Reclamation manages 476 dams and dikes, 370 of which are listed within the high or significant hazard class, meaning failure of the dam or dike would cause life loss or significant damages. Once Reclamation begins risk modifications to a dam, the local partners share 15 percent of the associated costs. Since the creation of the SOD Program, Congress has seen fit to raise the program's authorized ceiling four times--in 1984, 2000, and 2002. Twelve years later, it is time to keep this program going once more before we hit the ceiling. My bill would do away with the authorization ceiling and permanently authorize this important program. No longer would the ceiling be a hindrance on advancing dam safety. A project in my home State helps to illustrate the problem. Scoggins Dam is located in Washington County, OR. The dam forms the heart of the water system in the Tualatin Basin, providing drinking water to residents, irrigation for valuable croplands, and support for nearly a quarter million jobs. The risk to Scoggins Dam comes from its position within the Cascade subduction zone, where a typical earthquake has a magnitude of 8.7 to 9.2. As the first U.S. Senator to visit Fukushima after its devastating subduction zone earthquake and resulting tsunami, I saw firsthand the incredible damage a seismic event can have on a region and its infrastructure. The Bureau of Reclamation is already well into the process of risk assessment on Scoggins Dam, and the current SOD Program ceiling poses a significant obstacle to advancing the project to concrete risk- mitigation actions. Reclamation has evaluated Scoggins Dam and predicted that an earthquake could cause spill wall failure and potential embankment failure due to deformation, overtopping, or erosion through cracks. Reclamation completed the correction action study for Scoggins in late 2012; however, no modifications can proceed until there is room in the SOD Program budget. The uncertainty around fixing this Federal facility is taking a toll on economic development at a time when pivotal Oregon companies like Intel and Nike are undertaking expansions in Washington County. Scoggins Dam joins a list of other dam projects on the near horizon that won't be able to proceed without this bill. Ensuring that dams continue to provide the benefits they do across the West in a safe manner is an important responsibility. I want to express my thanks to the Tualatin Basin Water Supply Partners for their diligent work to see that safety modifications are made for the public's benefit and to meet the region's long-run water needs. I look forward to working with Senator Schatz, Senator Feinstein, and other colleagues and the bill's other supporters to continue the work of the SOD Program.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce a bill to protect valuable water resource infrastructure across the West. I am pleased to be joined by Senators Schatz and Feinstein who share my concern for dam safety. The Bureau of Reclamation's Dam Safety Program is not a new program, but it is vital for farmers, local economies, and communities in 17 Western States. Because the Safety of Dams, SOD Program is running out of money, it is essential that Congress extend the program and allow projects to proceed by permanently authorizing the funding needed. The SOD Program has a straightforward mission: ``to ensure that Reclamation facilities do not present unreasonable risks to the public, public safety, property, and/or the environment.'' The challenge of meeting that mission is complicated by the strains of aging infrastructure and population growth within dam failure zones. Reclamation manages 476 dams and dikes, 370 of which are listed within the high or significant hazard class, meaning failure of the dam or dike would cause life loss or significant damages. Once Reclamation begins risk modifications to a dam, the local partners share 15 percent of the associated costs. Since the creation of the SOD Program, Congress has seen fit to raise the program's authorized ceiling four times--in 1984, 2000, and 2002. Twelve years later, it is time to keep this program going once more before we hit the ceiling. My bill would do away with the authorization ceiling and permanently authorize this important program. No longer would the ceiling be a hindrance on advancing dam safety. A project in my home State helps to illustrate the problem. Scoggins Dam is located in Washington County, OR. The dam forms the heart of the water system in the Tualatin Basin, providing drinking water to residents, irrigation for valuable croplands, and support for nearly a quarter million jobs. The risk to Scoggins Dam comes from its position within the Cascade subduction zone, where a typical earthquake has a magnitude of 8.7 to 9.2. As the first U.S. Senator to visit Fukushima after its devastating subduction zone earthquake and resulting tsunami, I saw firsthand the incredible damage a seismic event can have on a region and its infrastructure. The Bureau of Reclamation is already well into the process of risk assessment on Scoggins Dam, and the current SOD Program ceiling poses a significant obstacle to advancing the project to concrete risk- mitigation actions. Reclamation has evaluated Scoggins Dam and predicted that an earthquake could cause spill wall failure and potential embankment failure due to deformation, overtopping, or erosion through cracks. Reclamation completed the correction action study for Scoggins in late 2012; however, no modifications can proceed until there is room in the SOD Program budget. The uncertainty around fixing this Federal facility is taking a toll on economic development at a time when pivotal Oregon companies like Intel and Nike are undertaking expansions in Washington County. Scoggins Dam joins a list of other dam projects on the near horizon that won't be able to proceed without this bill. Ensuring that dams continue to provide the benefits they do across the West in a safe manner is an important responsibility. I want to express my thanks to the Tualatin Basin Water Supply Partners for their diligent work to see that safety modifications are made for the public's benefit and to meet the region's long-run water needs. I look forward to working with Senator Schatz, Senator Feinstein, and other colleagues and the bill's other supporters to continue the work of the SOD Program.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to show my strong support for the Medicare Program with the introduction of the Better Care, Lower Cost Act with my colleague, Senator Isakson. The Medicare Program, treasured by millions of Americans today, is now dominated by cancer, diabetes, heart disease, and other chronic conditions. It is time for reform that offers seniors with chronic health challenges better quality, more affordable health care. Fortunately, there are several pioneering health care leaders already paving the way to reform. The bipartisan legislation we are offering is designed to remove the government's shackles on innovation so that the types of successful approaches discussed by health care leaders here this morning become the norm rather than the exception. The good news is that when the Senate Finance Committee recently approved legislation to fix Medicare's broken system of reimbursing doctors, the bill locked in specific incentives to move away from fee- for-service medicine. As part of its markup, the Senate Finance Committee added the foundation for improving chronic care for seniors: reforms that guarantee many more seniors access to individual care plans tailored to their unique needs. The Better Care, Lower Cost Act builds on that progress and introduces a bold new concept in Medicare: the idea that chronic care should come first. Here are a few things the legislation does to promote this idea: First, the legislation creates the Better Care Program, allowing health practices to create better care practices and health plans to become better health plans that care for patients with teams led by nurses, doctors, and physician assistants that must adhere to the highest quality standards. These innovators will receive one payment for their collective efforts to meet the chronic health needs of the seniors enrolled. This will give providers the flexibility to deliver the right care at the right time in the right place. Second, because most seniors lack access to coordinated, chronic care services today, the legislation sets aside the limiting Federal mandates--like the ``attribution rule''--that prevent these teams from actively reaching out to the seniors who would benefit most from specialized chronic care. Our legislation also changes Federal law so that participating practices and plans are able to reward seniors who participate in the Better Care Program by lowering their out-of-pocket costs when they work with their health care team. Third, this bill recognizes that seniors with chronic conditions live all over the country and sets out a plan for bringing providers and plans to every nook and cranny of America. And for those seniors and providers in rural or underserved areas, the legislation uses telemedicine and other technologies as resources to help to closely monitor and manage chronic conditions. Finally, a word about the private sector. This bill recognizes the advances that have been made that prove that better care can be provided at lower cost. There should not be as many barriers when arriving at the gates of Medicare. In fact, in my hometown of Portland, OR, when seniors talk about their Medicare, they are really talking about plans like Kaiser and Providence that are fully integrated. Seniors should have those care choices no matter where they live. In Washington, there is talk a lot about ``Medicare delivery system reform'' without mentioning why it is necessary or how it will actually help the people Medicare serves. The legislation Senator Isakson and I are introducing today is about giving seniors with chronic illnesses the focus and attention they need and deserve. Every day Americans hear new statistics about the impact chronic illness has on families, productivity, and the economy as a whole. But I can't recall a legislative effort where all those involved have remained singularly focused on solutions to this big problem. To be clear, this legislation is not driven by a simple desire to cut costs. Anyone can save money by cutting benefits, but this legislation would actually improve the care that seniors receive. I urge my colleagues to join us in this effort by cosponsoring this important legislation.