Ron Wyden

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President and colleagues, this amendment is for the more than 25 million Americans--more than 800,000 of them serving in the military--who vote by mail in our system of government, the most open and free system of government in the world. Those millions of Americans may vote absentee, they may vote in what is called no-excuse absentee, or they may vote in an all-mail election, but they deserve this fall to have the assurance from the U.S. Senate that as we reform the Postal Service, the election will not be disrupted. I hope my colleagues will support this. I think it has been discussed at length on both sides of the aisle. It has always been bipartisan to try to expand the franchise. I hope we can pass this on a voice vote. I wish to thank both Chairman Lieberman and Senator Collins, who had a real challenge handling all of these amendments and who have been very gracious, both of them, as always. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, shortly we will be turning to the legislation to reform the Postal Service, and I wanted to take a few minutes to talk about a particularly important part of that discussion. In recent years there has been a revolution in how our citizens exercise their right to vote. Instead of every American showing up in person, more and more Americans are choosing to vote by mail, using absentee ballots, no-excuse absentee voting or, in the case of my home State of Oregon, the entire election is conducted by mail. This amendment I will be offering and that I am discussing this morning--and in which I join Senator Feinstein and other colleagues--is designed to protect the millions of Americans who choose to use the post office to exercise their right to vote. This amendment protects those millions of Americans from any kind of postal delay that could disrupt their ability to ensure their vote is counted. My home State of Oregon has a system in which all ballots are cast by mail. In Oregon, if the ballots are not delivered by mail to the county election offices by the deadline on election night, they are not counted. So it is essential to the conduct of fair elections in my home State that delivery of ballots cast by mail not be delayed. To prevent the potential threat to our elections from delayed mail delivery, the Wyden-Feinstein amendment would place a moratorium on the closure of postal facilities until November 13, 2012, in States that vote by mail or allow any voter to vote no-excuse absentee. It would also require the Postal Service to notify election officials of closings and consolidations and require the Postal Service to study the effect of closing or consolidating a mail processing facility on the ability of the affected community to vote by mail. My home State consistently has high voter turnout. Vote by mail has been successful and it is popular. In my State, more than 85 percent of registered voters participated in the 2008 elections, but this kind of approach to voting is popular not just in my home State of Oregon. In the 2008 election, 89 percent of ballots in Washington State were cast by mail, as well as 64 percent of those in Colorado, over 50 percent in Arizona, and it was nearly that high a percentage in California. In my home State, the Postal Service is a place where people send and receive packages and mail order prescriptions, and it is also a place that community residents come together. It seems to me that if we are going to close and consolidate postal facilities, not only will it harm the delivery of ballots and campaign-related mail to voters and return of the ballots to election officials, but it also will zap much of what is vital to rural America; that is, the opportunity to come and gather in one place. Jordan Valley, located in beautiful eastern Oregon on the Nevada border, is 457 miles from Portland. With the proposed consolidations, the nearest regional processing center would literally be almost 500 miles away. If the U.S. Postal Service goes ahead with their proposed closures and consolidations, then a ballot cast in Jordan Valley could travel approximately 1,000 miles before it reaches the hands of election officials. This is unacceptable for constituents who vote in the far corners--the rural corners--of my State. Cuts to the Postal Service mean that ballots mailed in the final days before an election may not get to election officials in time to be counted. Ballots sent the weekend before a Tuesday vote may not get into the hands of election officials by the present-day deadline of election day. Closing and consolidating postal facilities disproportionately harms the ability of rural residents to have their votes counted. These issues raise important questions: Is closing postal facilities in States that primarily vote by mail a responsible approach? For me and many of my constituents and the millions of Americans who have chosen to vote in this fashion, the resounding answer is, no, this is not a responsible approach. Closing processing facilities and potentially impacting the delivery of ballots in a general election is a risk not worth it. Closing postal facilities will have unintended and unforeseen consequences on the impact of elections. That is why this amendment would place a moratorium until November 13, 2012, in States that conduct all their elections by mail or permit no-excuse absentee voting to ensure that elections are fair. No-excuse voting, of course, allows any voter to vote absentee without having to offer additional reasons for their making that choice. Twenty-seven States allow no-excuse absentee voting. So not only will the constituents that I and Senator Merkley and Senator Feinstein and Senator Boxer represent in Oregon and California be affected by this amendment, but States such as Nevada, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Utah, Wisconsin, and Wyoming are part of the many states in this country that this amendment would protect. In September of 2011, election officials in California were doing their jobs and preparing and mailing sample ballots for a September election in an isolated community in northern California. Unaware that the small post office that serves the area was closing on October 1, the sample ballots were not immediately returned so they had no reason to believe the voters had not received them. But as ballots slowly trickled in, election officials grew a bit suspicious, and they learned many voters had just received their sample ballot more than 3 weeks after it was mailed, and many had not received their official ballot yet. Election officials received no more than two or three a day literally for the first week. Voters explained to officials there was so much confusion over the closure of the post office that they were much more concerned about receiving their other first-class mail--bills and prescriptions--than their ballots and hadn't been looking for them. They were told the contents of their post office box were being directed to the Arcata Post Office. But when they went to Arcata to retrieve it, there was no mail for them in Arcata. For 18 days, they didn't receive any mail at all. Only 15 days before the election, the staff attempted several times to contact the Arcata Post Office but could only leave a message for the postmaster who was not returning their calls. Folks then contacted friends at a local central processing center in yet another town, Eureka, CA, who were able to give a direct line to the Arcata postmaster. At first, the postmaster indicated nothing was wrong, but the residents, in his terms, were ``confused about the closure of their post office.'' After checking the number of ballots that had been returned from the precincts, election officials decided to resend all those ballots. The postmaster finally provided election officials with the change of address list for all residents, and they were able to correct the database, cancel the ballots that had not yet been received, and remail ballots to all voters who had not yet returned their ballots. Obviously, the bottom line is clear. The closure of small post offices requires more preparation and sharing of information with the residents of an impacted area as well as agencies and businesses that rely on the post office to communicate with their customers. Had election officials not had a contact in that area, they may not have become aware of the problem until it was too late to resend the ballots. Under the amendment I will be offering later with Senator Feinstein, the Postal Service would be required to notify election officials of closings and consolidations to prevent the kind of calamitous repeat of what I have described happened in a recent local election in California. Additionally, the amendment would require the Postal Service to study the effect of closing or consolidating a mail processing facility on the ability of the affected community to vote by mail and the ability of the Postal Service to deliver ballots on time in accordance with applicable State law. Disenfranchising voters or discouraging the millions of Americans who now have chosen this new approach to voting is not a wise or prudent step for the Senate to take at this time. Placing a moratorium until after the elections will ensure that what is done in the Senate does not negatively impact voting in Oregon, California or the scores of other States that make extensive use of mail ballots in their elections. I hope it will be possible for us to win bipartisan support for the proposition that ensuring the highest level of voting participation in our country is fundamental to our democracy. I hope my colleagues will support the amendment I intend to offer later with my colleague and friend from California, Senator Feinstein, to protect the millions of Americans who choose to vote by mail. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I wish to advocate for legislation my colleague, Senator Portman, and I have coauthored that focuses on driving better health outcomes for America's seniors through the use of real, positive financial incentives. I think we can all agree on a theory--the best health care is often the least expensive, and it is often health care you can have real control over--prevention. According to the Hastings Center, 76 percent of Medicare spending is on patients with five or more chronic diseases: stroke, heart disease, diabetes and cancer lead the way. And with $2.7 trillion spent annually on health care, one of the best ways to slow the growth of that spending is to keep Americans healthier, and to do that, we have to reduce the prevalence of chronic disease. I think Medicare can help spark that transformation. It is a large Federal program, some of the smartest health policy links the Federal Government and the private sector, and, most important, the Federal Government already pays for seniors to have an annual physical. At present, when seniors leave that physical, too often there is no game plan or specific steps a senior can take to get healthier in the year ahead. Seniors get a bunch of numbers about their tests, possibly a prescription, and some medical lingo about their general health, but mostly everyone just hopes things will turn out OK at the next physical. Maybe it was an OK year, and that extra dessert wasn't a problem after all. We believe that if the Federal Government is already paying for that physical, it is only common sense to wring every possible advantage for seniors out of it, specifically by giving seniors the tools to make changes that promote good health and reward them for staying motivated. That is exactly what the bill I have written with Senator Portman does. Typically, the assumption has always been that preventive care means more services. But in this case, government already pays for the service--the $3.8 billion on the annual wellness visit--and we are saying, let's get more out of that visit. Here is how our legislation--the Medicare Better Health Rewards Program Act--would do that: First, it is voluntary. Since we hear a little discussion about mandates these days, this is voluntary. In year 1, a senior has their physical, has their tests run, and their health provider has a conversation with them about their health. They come up with a plan to use the next year so that the senior can get healthier. The provider then lets Medicare know their patient is participating. In year 2, the senior comes back for their next annual wellness visit. Again, tests are run, and they discuss the changes that may have occurred over the last year. If they have gotten healthier and their provider confirms it, they are eligible for a Healthy Reward. If they haven't, they still had their physical at no out of pocket cost to them. Their provider still gets paid. The same happens again in year 3. Finally, the money to pay these rewards comes from the fact that as participating seniors get healthier, Medicare is spending less money on them. They are saving the system money. If that occurs, those seniors who are getting healthier will be able to share in the savings. Bottom line: Innovation is rampant in American health care, and we are here with a new strategy to bring a fresh wave of innovation to Medicare. I would like to thank Senator Portman for working with me on this new approach to Medicare reform, and I urge my colleagues to join us in cosponsoring our legislation.

Mr. WYDEN

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

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I have been able to listen a bit to the wonderful tributes over the last few hours to Senator Mikulski. We all know of her wonderful service all these years, the record that is being shattered--a very special record. As I listened to some of the comments, I was struck that tributes usually come in the Senate when one of our colleagues is leaving office or sometimes one of our colleagues passes away. And what I am struck by this afternoon is how glad I am and colleagues on both sides of the aisle are that Senator Mikulski is very much alive, and next week and next month and in the years ahead she is going to continue to bring this kind of wellspring of conscience and energy and passion and expertise to the Senate. I am going to have more to say in terms of a lengthier speech, but she and I have had a special relationship for almost three decades. We served together in the other body on the Energy and Commerce Committee. We would often show up at meetings together, and this is still a tradition that continues now because we both have the honor of serving on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Senator Mikulski and I would walk in together, and she would smile and say: Now the long and short of it are arriving. And I guess that is true in a literal sense, but while Senator Mikulski may be modest in stature, she has one very large record on behalf of the public interest, and I am especially grateful for all she has done for people without power and people without clout. When we think about what has so angered the American people--and I have heard the Senator from Colorado, the Presiding Officer, talk about this--it is that people feel so disconnected from government; that you can have a community meeting in Oregon or Colorado or Maryland or some other part of the country, and somehow there is this sense what goes on in Washington really has nothing to do with people in their home community. Senator Mikulski doesn't practice public service that way. Senator Mikulski has always felt, since the days when she was a community organizer and they were dealing with those community problems and where are you going to locate a freeway or something of that nature, that public service and community service were always about being connected to people. She understood right away what people may say at a townhall meeting now in Colorado or Oregon about government being removed from their lives, and for decades she has practiced a very different kind of public service. She did it when she was a community organizer, she did it in the House of Representatives, and she continues to do it today. Very often when we take the subway to a vote and I ask her what she has done over the weekend, she will talk about families. She knows I was codirector of the Gray Panthers for many years before I was elected to Congress, so we will talk about aging issues. And everybody knows what she has done in the aging field and her interest in fighting Alzheimer's. So it always comes back to people, and that connection she brings to public service that is so lacking from what Americans see is the big problem in government today, that much of what goes on here is simply disconnected from their lives. What I see in Barbara Mikulski is the real measure of what we want in a public servant. We want someone who is conscientious, we want someone who is smart, we want someone who has good values and someone who always tries to be a coalition builder. I have watched Senator Mikulski in lots of instances. We had one just recently where Senator Mikulski was trying to find a balance on a difficult and contentious issue between industry and the environment, and I watched how she was trying to listen to both sides. Maryland has some communities where they have older plants, and if she can't take steps to protect those plants and have the workers keep their jobs, a lot of people are going to hurt, and Senator Mikulski always tries to keep that from happening. She has also said clean air and the environmental laws are important. And that last quality of trying to bring people together, which I have heard the Senator from Colorado talk about, is what Senator Mikulski's public service career has been all about. So tonight and through the day we have heard colleagues pay tribute. I made mention of the fact that so often I hear these tributes when a colleague is leaving the Senate. I would like to close these brief remarks by saying that I am especially grateful that the cause of good government is enhanced by the fact that Senator Mikulski is very much alive. This is not a tribute to someone who is leaving office, this is a tribute to someone who is going to be here next week, next month, and the years ahead, continuing to shatter those records as she advocates for people who don't have big lobbies, who don't have lots of political clout and can't go out and hire PR firms and well-paid and well- tailored advocates to walk the halls of the Senate. She is there for those people who don't have a voice. She has been there for those people ever since she was a community organizer in those early days in Baltimore. When I think about trying to give public service a good name, I think about Barbara Mikulski--our wonderful friend, Senator Barbara Mikulski, the senior Senator from the State of Maryland. We thank her for giving public service a good name. We thank her for taking on the battles and the fights she has in the past. And we are all especially grateful that at the end of this tribute she will be back at her post a few seats from me, standing for those values and standing for those causes that are so important to the well-being of this country. Madam President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize someone who has spent the last 30 years in the front ranks of the fight against hunger in my State. Rachel Bristol, president and CEO of the Oregon Food Bank, has devoted her life to making sure that Oregonians in need are able to put nutritious food on the table. She has spent every minute of every day of her career doing everything in her power to eliminate hunger. As Rachel retires, she leaves behind a legacy of determination and hard work that has guided the Oregon Food Bank and seen it expand into a professional organization that reflects her vision of what a community should do to help those in need. Last year alone, the Oregon Food Bank Network distributed more than 81 million pounds of food. I am proud to say that I have stood beside the food bank's employees and volunteers and packaged my share of pancake mix or other food. So, I know firsthand how dedicated they are in making sure that no one goes to bed hungry. Whether we call it hunger, food insecurity or something else, what we are really talking about is the tragedy of having hungry families in the richest country in the world. Rachel saw that inequity and spent her life doing something about it. Because of that fewer people in Oregon went hungry because she gave them a place to go--a place to look to--for basic nutritious food to put on their table. Because of Rachel Bristol, the food bank is a better organization and Oregon is a better community. While she may be retiring, something tells me that the fight against hunger will always be a part of who she is.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, the Baucus amendment is a lifeline for rural America, particularly for the West and the South, where the Federal Government owns so much of our land. This money is absolutely essential to keep school doors open, to keep cops out there protecting our people, and to provide for our roads program. This program has always been bipartisan since the days when our former colleague Senator Craig and I authored it. I urge my colleagues to support Chairman Baucus on this amendment to provide a lifeline to rural America.

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I urge opposition to this amendment. I wish to outline just very briefly why. First, under this amendment the oil is not going to be going to the United States. This oil is going to be going to the export market, and the TransCanada application to the Canadian Government showed this beyond any question. The Canadian oil companies expect to reap as much as $3.9 billion more in annual revenue from the higher prices they can tap once their oil reaches the gulf coast. It competes at the same price as other oil supplies on the global market--no protection for workers, no protection on the environment, and, I believe, higher prices for American businesses and American consumers. I urge my colleagues to vote no on the amendment.

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I yield the floor at this time.

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I have filed an alternative to the amendment offered by my friend from North Dakota. I ask unanimous consent to call up amendment No. 1817.

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, the Senator from North Dakota earlier offered a proposal to develop the Keystone Pipeline. I rise to speak on the alternative this afternoon. The alternative ensures expedited approval of the pipeline once the current environmental requirements are met. The alternative ensures that the thousands of jobs associated with building the pipeline go to the workers of the United States. The alternative says there is to be a ban on the export of all Canadian crude oil transported on the Keystone XL Pipeline. Obviously there may be some exceptions, and we have worked out a process to waive that. But if this oil is intended for Americans, then the export restrictions we offer in this amendment ought to be very clear, and that is the heart of the concern reflected by the backers of this amendment. We believe there is substantial evidence on the Record that this oil will be for the export market. According to the TransCanada application to the Canadian Government, the Canadian oil companies expect to reap as much as $3.9 billion more in annual revenues from the higher prices they can tap once the oil reaches the gulf coast. Once it reaches the gulf coast, it competes at the same prices as other oil supplies on the global market. It will be extremely lucrative for the company and the incentives clearly are for the export market, and that is why the TransCanada application to the Canadian Government even admits that. The fact is U.S. gulf coast refineries are already responsible for 75 percent of U.S. refined products and those exports are rising rapidly. Gulf coast refineries also have a cost advantage over struggling refineries along the east coast, and in effect the Keystone XL Pipeline can accelerate that advantage and likely accelerate the closure of east coast refining capacity. Less east coast refining capacity means higher gasoline and heating and oil prices for our country. Perversely, according to a separate report we received from the Energy Information Agency, closure of east coast refineries could result in more imports of gasoline and other petroleum products, some possibly from as far away as India. That is particularly perverse because this is the first time since 1949 when we have actually seen exports of a number of our refined products, such as gasoline, have that dramatic change compared to previous years when we were always importing so many of those energy resources. So contrary to the assertion by the pipeline backers, more supply from Canada does not automatically mean more U.S. supply and lower prices for U.S. consumers, especially when the evidence indicates that that supply is going to be hardwired by the pipeline and world prices and world markets once it reaches the Gulf of Mexico. I simply say to Senators: This debate has always been about domestic energy security. That is the centerpiece of the argument that was made by my distinguished friend from North Dakota, and we have heard on television commercials for weeks and weeks. The argument is to build this pipeline, the energy is going to go for Americans. This amendment guarantees that will be the case. In effect, this amendment puts teeth behind all of the debate that this energy is going to be for the American consumer. I think the evidence shows, particularly as you look at how you are going to see refineries bypassed in the Midwest, that it is going to go to the gulf ports and you are going to see this energy used in the export market. That may be good for the Chinese, but the evidence could indicate it would produce higher prices for Americans. In fact, this trend with respect to putting the export of American energy on auto pilot--assuming that it is automatically good--is something I think we ought to look at more carefully. In this amendment we make it clear we want to protect American workers, American consumers, and we are going to have expedited approval of the pipeline. The only point I would make is the Secure Rural Schools legislation-- which we are going to be voting in a few minutes--has always been bipartisan. I have been working with Chairman Baucus to ensure that it remains bipartisan. I hope colleagues will keep faith with rural communities, and when it comes up for a vote here in a few minutes, support the Baucus amendment and our rural schools and law enforcement and road programs that are a lifeline to those rural communities.

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, we had a discussion, a very important discussion--I know the Presiding Officer cares a great deal about this topic, as well as Senator Collins and also Senator Boxer--on this issue about boilers. I want to be clear about what is at issue in this debate. The debate about boilers stems from the fact that the EPA did not originally get the boiler rules right. The agency admitted they did not get them right, and the agency said they needed 15 months to fix the boiler rules. But the courts said the agency could not have the time. They said that EPA could have 30 days to fix the rules. As colleagues have said, this debate has gone on for so long there is no way it is going to be turned around in 30 days. So I joined in the legislation to give the EPA 15 months to rewrite the rules so as to protect good-paying jobs and communities that are affected by the boiler rules, while ensuring the health of our people and the protection of our environment. That was 15 months ago. EPA got the time it said it needed to rewrite the rules, and the new final rules will be out within 90 days. I wish to outline for the Senate what the new rules will do. First, the new rules, as proposed in the legislation, change what constitutes solid waste so that boiler fuels, for example, that are wood waste can be used for fuels such as biomass; and waste from steel mills, as another example, can be used as a fuel, as they are today, rather than to be regulated out of existence as a fuel source. Second, as proposed in the legislation, the new rules will create an open-to-the-public list of what can and cannot be burned in a boiler. This is going to provide important predictability and certainty to American industry, and it will provide new accountability to our communities. All across the United States, folks are going to be able to know, as a result of these new rules, what can and cannot be actually burned in a boiler. Third, again, just like the legislation, the rules address the fact that because EPA was unable to get the rules right at the outset, more time is needed for compliance. I know the distinguished Presiding Officer has been interested in this issue as well: the question of compliance and the time that would be provided for industries to meet the standards. In the final rule, the compliance clock is reset with a rule providing additional time for industry to comply. This is like what was in the original legislation. So industry will have 4 years to comply, and Administrator Jackson stated in writing that she will assist any hard-hit community, any company facing extra duress in terms of complying. Administrator Jackson has indicated on a case-by-case basis she will provide additional time to help those communities and to help those companies. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Administrator's letter to me be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN. I want to address the discussion we heard from our colleagues, particularly Senator Collins and Senator Boxer, on the key point. The changes I have described--the fact that we have made the rules changes so that so many of these materials will be treated as fuels, which is important in timber country that I and the distinguished Presiding Officer represent; the fact that we have this new process that provides predictability and certainty about what can be burned in a boiler; the fact that there is the additional time--all of this, in my view, has been spurred by the legislation introduced by the Senator from Maine, Ms. Collins. We ought to make no mistake about it. The important rules changes I have outlined this morning that I think are going to provide certainty and predictability to our businesses--while at the same time protecting the health of our people, the environment of our country--have been spurred because Senator Collins was willing to pick up the challenge and address this issue. These new rules are going to finally take effect in less than 90 days. But the question I would ask Senators is, who knows what will happen to these important rules that are just about ready for implementation if, in effect, we say, as the amendment does, let's go back to the beginning and talk about addressing this again over 15 months? If the amendment passes, and the EPA is told--as I have been advised under the text of the amendment--to take another 15 months, in my view, what would happen is, the agency would go back to spending this additional time working to try to get to the point where we are today. That, in my view, just does not add up. It does not add up for the industries that have been concerned about this. It does not add up for the communities. It does not add up for the health of our people and the protection of our environment. Let me close with this. Having been involved in the legislation, No. 1, having tried to make clear this afternoon that these important rules, in my view, have been spurred by the legislation Senator Collins has talked about, I wished to state that I intend, and I know others in the Senate will do as well, to watchdog the rules that will be out shortly every step of the way to ensure that they are fully implemented, to hold the Environmental Protection Agency to the commitments that have been made in these rules that are forthcoming, and to ensure that all our communities--all our communities--can see that finally this issue is being addressed and it is being addressed in a way that makes sense for the jobs we are going to need in our communities and to the public health and the environment. I hope colleagues will look finally at the letter Administrator Jackson has sent me. I think it addresses, in particular, the timetable so many Senators have been concerned about. I have tried to outline some of the other issues that I think are critical, particularly the fact that we have the changes in the definition of solid waste that is so important. A whole host of materials have been added to that list of fuels. That means we can protect the jobs that stem from countries that use--the products that use these materials and at the same time protect the environment. So this makes sense from the standpoint of a realistic rule on what constitutes a fuel, openness and transparency, because the American people will see what actually can be burned in a boiler. To me--and Senator Boxer has touched on this question of the years that have already gone into this effort--Administrator Jackson, in my view, has gone to substantial lengths to address this timetable that industry has been so concerned about. In fact, I think it is fair to say that when I add what she has committed to, it is almost the same timetable as in her original legislation. So why in the world would we want to set aside those rules and go back again to the period of starting a new 15-month clock, only to see, in my view, that after those additional 15 months, we would be back to the place we are today, in terms of the rules that will be shortly implemented. I urge the Senate to reject the amendment. We are going to continue to watchdog this issue until these rules are fully implemented. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, this amendment ensures that the Keystone Pipeline is built by American workers using American steel; that our priority is reasonably priced energy for American families and American businesses, rather than their Chinese competitors. It contains an expedited approval process so that when air and water and environmental laws are complied with, the pipeline application must be approved within 90 days. Put simply, when you build a pipeline that is 2,000 miles across the Nation, our challenge is to do it right. Madam President, there are two alternatives. This one gives us a chance to do it right for our workers, our businesses, the well-being of all our communities. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. WYDEN. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of patients, practitioners and the American taxpayer to introduce the Medicare Orthotics and Prosthetics Improvement Act of 2012 with my colleagues, Senators Snowe and Grassley. The current orthotics and prosthetics, O&P, market is ripe for fraud and abuse. Unqualified and dishonest practitioners are taking advantage of patients and Medicare by providing substandard O&P products and manipulating the Medicare payment system. No rule has been implemented on the Federal level which would require these practitioners and providers to be licensed or accredited, despite calls from Congress to do so, and therefore all comers are able to bill Medicare on the taxpayer's dime. Congress and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services have tried to address this issue in the past, but have come up short. In both 2000 and 2003, Congress passed legislation which should have increased the qualification standards for these providers. Unfortunately, nothing came of these efforts and a decade later we have a system in place that does little to discourage fraud and abuse in these fields. One department, however, has stepped up and taken the lead on this issue: the Department of Veterans Affairs. After a program evaluation showed that VA O&P Laboratories did not meet quality standards they changed their policy so that only accredited laboratories and individuals may fabricate prostheses and orthoses. The rest of the country must follow the VA's lead in order to ensure that patients from Oregon to Maine have access to high quality orthotics and prosthetics from a trusted source. Our legislation accomplishes this goal through measures that would improve the oversight of O&P practitioners. The Medicare Orthotics and Prosthetics Improvement Act would get rid of unqualified practitioners by prohibiting CMS from making any Medicare payment for orthotics and prosthetics to a practitioner who has not secured a license in those states that require licensure. Again, this requirement was issued by CMS in 2005 but has not yet been implemented. Practitioners in states without licensure requirements would need to become accredited in order to continue practicing. The accreditation standard would be identical to the standard adopted by the Veterans Administration in 2004. The legislation goes a step further by requiring that the Medicare payment is matched to the qualification of the provider and the complexity of the patient's needs and the device provided. This provision will protect patients from suppliers with little or no education and training to provide comprehensive O&P services, while rewarding providers who have secured more advanced training and practice on more complex patients. These common sense reforms will benefit patients, qualified practitioners and taxpayers. I urge my colleagues to join Senators Snowe, Grassley and me in supporting this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of patients, practitioners and the American taxpayer to introduce the Medicare Orthotics and Prosthetics Improvement Act of 2012 with my colleagues, Senators Snowe and Grassley. The current orthotics and prosthetics, O&P, market is ripe for fraud and abuse. Unqualified and dishonest practitioners are taking advantage of patients and Medicare by providing substandard O&P products and manipulating the Medicare payment system. No rule has been implemented on the Federal level which would require these practitioners and providers to be licensed or accredited, despite calls from Congress to do so, and therefore all comers are able to bill Medicare on the taxpayer's dime. Congress and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services have tried to address this issue in the past, but have come up short. In both 2000 and 2003, Congress passed legislation which should have increased the qualification standards for these providers. Unfortunately, nothing came of these efforts and a decade later we have a system in place that does little to discourage fraud and abuse in these fields. One department, however, has stepped up and taken the lead on this issue: the Department of Veterans Affairs. After a program evaluation showed that VA O&P Laboratories did not meet quality standards they changed their policy so that only accredited laboratories and individuals may fabricate prostheses and orthoses. The rest of the country must follow the VA's lead in order to ensure that patients from Oregon to Maine have access to high quality orthotics and prosthetics from a trusted source. Our legislation accomplishes this goal through measures that would improve the oversight of O&P practitioners. The Medicare Orthotics and Prosthetics Improvement Act would get rid of unqualified practitioners by prohibiting CMS from making any Medicare payment for orthotics and prosthetics to a practitioner who has not secured a license in those states that require licensure. Again, this requirement was issued by CMS in 2005 but has not yet been implemented. Practitioners in states without licensure requirements would need to become accredited in order to continue practicing. The accreditation standard would be identical to the standard adopted by the Veterans Administration in 2004. The legislation goes a step further by requiring that the Medicare payment is matched to the qualification of the provider and the complexity of the patient's needs and the device provided. This provision will protect patients from suppliers with little or no education and training to provide comprehensive O&P services, while rewarding providers who have secured more advanced training and practice on more complex patients. These common sense reforms will benefit patients, qualified practitioners and taxpayers. I urge my colleagues to join Senators Snowe, Grassley and me in supporting this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from North Dakota for his statement. This is bipartisan. It is a bicameral effort. My colleague's point at the end, in terms of our being open to additional ideas and suggestions, is particularly appropriate. What the challenge is going to be on this transportation issue for years to come is to try to find a way to generate the additional money for the work that needs to be done in a fashion that is acceptable to the American people. If it was so easy, everybody would be just ripping through one idea after another. The two of us have spent many months trying to take the lessons we have learned from the Build America bonds effort to try to come up with a fresh approach, a fresh bipartisan approach, that would be acceptable to colleagues on both sides of the aisle. We think we have done it. We do not think this is the only way. We are certainly open to ideas and suggestions. But the model of trying to focus on the States, to build on the support we have from folks in business and labor unions, and a whole host of groups at the local level--mayors and county commissioners--strikes us as the way to go. We are open to additional ideas and suggestions. Our staffs will be working all through this week, the period of the President's Day recess, to refine our proposal, to deal with the various issues related to scoring. But this is a genuinely new approach to generating revenue. It is bipartisan; it is bicameral, with the support of folks in labor and business. We hope colleagues will be supportive, and we are interested in their ideas and suggestions over this period between now and when we start voting on the Transportation bill. So, again, I thank my friend from North Dakota. It has been great to work with him. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for just 2 additional minutes. I see our friend from Iowa is in the Chamber.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, we all understand that our country faces an array of major economic challenges, and I made the judgment quite some time ago that it was simply impossible to have big league economic wealth with little league transportation systems. All across the country--I know the distinguished Presiding Officer has seen this in Minnesota, where he has been doing good work on infrastructure and bridges--we have seen this in every corner. When the Senator from North Dakota came to the Senate, I had the good fortune to begin to have discussions with him with respect to some new ways to address the question of how to generate funds for the critical transportation work that needs to be done and to generate those funds in a fashion that would be acceptable to the American people. I think we all understand that with this kind of an economy and with skyrocketing gasoline prices, it is not very likely that folks will be marching outside our Senate offices anytime soon carrying signs saying: Senator, please raise the gas tax; that is what I hope you will spend your time doing. So we have this challenge given the fact that the traditional system of funding transportation--user fees--of course, in a tough economy, is going to be hard to suggest as a route to generate additional funds. So for quite some time I have been devoted to the cause of trying to find a way to secure the possibility of getting additional funds through transportation bonds. They, of course, have been used at a variety of levels of government, particularly State and local, over the years. About 8 years ago, I put forward the first proposal for looking at paying for transportation projects with our former colleague, Senator Jim Talent, a Republican from Missouri, and we called them Build America Bonds. Senator Talent and I thought at that time that this was an opportunity to come up with a fresh and attractive way to pay for transportation projects. We sought to work with the private sector to find some way to use Federal tax credit bonding for these projects, and over the years Senator Talent and I were able to attract a number of Senators on both sides of the aisle for this cause. To give an idea of just how bipartisan this effort has been over the years, Senator Thune, Senator Vitter, our former colleague Senator Dole, Senator Collins, Senator Wicker, and our former colleague Senator Coleman are just a few on the Republican side who were part of the effort. And on the Democratic side, Senator Klobuchar, our former colleague Senator Dayton, Senator Cardin, and Senator Rockefeller have been just a few of those who have supported the bonding efforts. In 2009 the Congress decided to test a version of Build America Bonds. In effect, as a member of the Senate Finance Committee, I had brought it up so many times with Chairman Baucus and Senator Grassley, who was then the ranking member, I think the two of them said: Well, let's give this a try as part of the Recovery Act. In effect, it would essentially go from the middle of 2009 until the end of 2010. Late in the evening, as Chairman Baucus and Senator Grassley were working to put together the details on the Recovery Act, I was asked what I thought might be the results of the Build America Bonds program, and I said: Well, it is not going to last all that long. It is going to take the Internal Revenue Service a period of time to put together the rules. And I said: I am just making this up, but why don't we just estimate that it might generate $6 billion to $10 billion worth of transportation and infrastructure investments. Everybody said: It is an experimental program, sounds promising, go ahead. Let's give it a try. Well, between April 2009 and the end of the program at the end of 2010, there was more than $181 billion worth of Build America Bonds issued. It was just a little bit more than 18 times what was predicted. You don't often have this kind of challenge, but, in effect, one of the issues we had to deal with was Build America Bonds became so popular that there was an effort to use them for a variety of other kinds of projects, many of them very laudable but they were not projects that focused specifically on transportation, and, of course, that was the original intent of Build America Bonds. Also, there was no cap on them. Nobody realized they would be so popular. So there was a concern that this was more than colleagues on both sides of the aisle had bargained for. We do want to note that the Treasury Department issued their final report on Build America Bonds earlier this year, and they said that Build America Bonds issuers saved well over $20 billion in borrowing costs on a present value basis as compared to tax-exempt bonds. So clearly there was something to work with in terms of trying to take the next step, and when the Senator from North Dakota arrived here, I said: It would be great to have an opportunity to work with a partner and look specifically at trying to rebuild the concept of focusing specifically on transportation in a way that would generate a substantial amount of new revenue and would be acceptable to colleagues across the political spectrum and those who follow these issues. As the Senator from North Dakota knows, we have now come up with a new approach called Transportation and Regional Infrastructure Project Bonds. Chairman Baucus and Senator Hatch have been good enough to include them in the finance title of this year's Transportation Funding Program, and we wanted to take a few minutes to talk a little bit about how this would work. Given the fact that we have been able to attract a number of folks on the progressive side of the political spectrum--folks in labor, for example--Doug Holtz-Eakin has issued a very helpful paper that I hope will also bring conservatives to this cause. We have shared that paper with Senators on both sides of the aisle. The way the TRIP bonds would work is, first, they are tax credit bonds created specifically for transportation projects. We would allow infrastructure banks that already exist in nearly every State to issue these bonds. This time we are looking to really focus on the States. The States are the primary vehicle for ensuring that these projects would have local support and would really meet the long-term needs the States have identified. We would pay for the bonds with a sinking fund comprised of State matching contributions and Customs user fees. In the proposal that was accepted by the Finance Committee, we would cap the total amount of bonds issued at $50 billion, giving each State 2 percent of the total. In effect, what the Finance Committee has done is put a placeholder in their bill for us to go forward with this effort. Each State would get at least $1 billion in bonds to issue on projects at their discretion. States can also band together to bond for larger projects or ones that would have the benefit of addressing a concern of States in a region. This would give the States the incentive and the ability to invest in their own transportation and does so in a way that leverages private investment and costs little to our government in lost revenue. We would give private investors who show a willingness to help build our roads, bridges, and rail systems a tax credit for their commitment. What Build America Bonds taught us is that there is a real market out there, and what we would like to do is look at a different approach now, focusing on the States, focusing on an approach that would drive these projects, not in Washington, DC but at the local level. The Joint Committee on Taxation has told us this is an approach that would produce a particularly good deal for American taxpayers. We can get a transportation bill done. We can put folks back to work. But we are going to have to find a way to come up with more creative approaches to generate additional revenue. If we do not, I think we are going to continue to see, in every corner of the country, critically needed projects simply go unaddressed. We are going to continue to see traffic jams in areas of the country nobody could have even dreamt a traffic jam would be. I hope Senators, as we go forward with this debate, particularly after the President's Day break, will join my colleagues. Senator Begich has been very supportive of this approach as well. We think this is an approach with a proven track record given what we saw with Build America Bonds. We believe this is a chance to take the lessons we learned from that experience and, by changing the focus so it zeros in more directly, one, on transportation, two, on the States, and looks to some creative features--it is possible, for example, for someone to strip the credit from the underlying bond and to sell the credit--so this provides a lot more flexibility in terms of finding a way to get the private sector into the transportation area. I hope my colleagues, when we come back, will be supportive of this effort. It has won, as I have indicated, support from across the political spectrum. I want to thank my partner from the State of North Dakota. I have very much enjoyed working with him both on the Energy Committee and on this issue. As a former Governor, I think he understands particularly well the role of the States in terms of infrastructure. We will be talking to colleagues between now and the time the Transportation bill comes up, and I thank my friend from North Dakota for his support. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business and would also ask unanimous consent that following my remarks, my colleague in this effort to fund transportation projects, Senator Hoeven, follow me.

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

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, when we went to college, usually things were different. Often a student took out a loan, but those loans were manageable, and usually there were jobs waiting. Today, too often that is not the case. In fact, the students today who take out loans will leave school weighed down, on average, with $25,000 worth of debt. They are going to be trying to get into a labor market where there are more than four unemployed Americans for every available job. It has been noted that for the first time student loan debt exceeds credit card debt, and that now totals over $100 billion. Now, clearly, investment in higher education is an economic imperative. Education is the great equalizer. It enables upward economic mobility, and it breaks down class structures that impair many countries' ability to grow their economies. A highly-skilled and educated workforce is the basis for a healthy economy, and it is the linchpin to our economic future.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, when we went to college, usually things were different. Often a student took out a loan, but those loans were manageable, and usually there were jobs waiting. Today, too often that is not the case. In fact, the students today who take out loans will leave school weighed down, on average, with $25,000 worth of debt. They are going to be trying to get into a labor market where there are more than four unemployed Americans for every available job. It has been noted that for the first time student loan debt exceeds credit card debt, and that now totals over $100 billion. Now, clearly, investment in higher education is an economic imperative. Education is the great equalizer. It enables upward economic mobility, and it breaks down class structures that impair many countries' ability to grow their economies. A highly-skilled and educated workforce is the basis for a healthy economy, and it is the linchpin to our economic future.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Wyden pertaining to the introduction of S. 2098 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')