Floor Statements

Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce a bill that will address the cumbersome and time consuming process under existing law within the Bureau of Indian Affairs. This piece of legislation will streamline the land acquisition process for the Confederated Tribe of Siletz Indians. The current process for taking land into trust is not working, and I believe there are changes that need to be revived in the existing process. I am pleased to be joined by Senator Merkley in this effort.

The original Siletz Coastal Treaty Reservation, established by the Executive Order on November 9, 1955 was diminished and then eliminated by the Federal Government's allotment and termination policies. Tribal members and tribal government have worked to rebuild the Siletz community since the Western Oregon Termination Act of August 1954 stripped the Siletz people of Federal tribal recognition, and since then the tribe has been struggling to rebuild its land base. This legislation would work to facilitate the tribe's land into trust process within the original Siletz coast reservation to overcome the chronic Bureau of Indian Affairs, BIA, delay in processing applications. Instead of having two processes to bring each piece of former reservation land back into the reservation after purchase, one to bring the land into trust, and another, to make it reservation land, allows the tribe to combine the process.

In this case, because the original reservation was disassembled, the tribe terminated and provided a very small land base upon restoration, virtually every tract of land the tribe seeks to place into trust today is considered by BIA pursuant to ``off reservation'' procedures. ``Off reservation'' requests would mean that the ``. . . secretary gives greater scrutiny to the tribe's justification of anticipated benefits . . .''

By applying the on-reservation fee-to-trust criteria for lands within the Siletz Tribe's original reservation, this legislation allows the Tribe to take land into trust that will ultimately provide for vital tribal programs such as housing, government administration, and jobs-- for both tribal and county residents. In addition, the bill emphasizes the importance and the intent of the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934--which allows the Secretary of Interior, in his or her discretion, to take land into trust for the benefit of an Indian tribe or of individual Indians. Essentially, reversing the loss of tribal lands and restoring some of the Tribe's original land base by allowing the Tribe to take land into trust under the same provisions as other Indian tribes within their reservations.

This bill underscores the importance of economic stability and self- determination for the confederated tribe of Siletz Indians and its members. Oregon Tribal communities suffer some of the greatest hurdles, whether it is health care, education, or crime on reservations, this bill would alleviate much of the cost and much needed resources associated with the bureaucratic hoops the tribe has had to jump through for years--which mean a significant savings of time and resources.

As a result of the great working relationships, the Siletz Tribe has approached all six involved counties, and obtained their support. This legislation establishes and confirms a positive and beneficial partnership between the Federal Government, Siletz Tribe and local counties Lincoln, Lane, Tillamook, Yamhill, Benton, and Douglas.

That is why I am introducing--the process has not sped up and we recognize the need for more action. It's always great to see Tribes and local counties work together to come up with proactive, inventive solutions for their communities to tackle challenging economic conditions.

I want to express my thanks to all the citizens and community and tribal leaders who have worked to build their communities. They represent the pioneering spirit and vision that defines my state.

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize a man who deserves his own branch on the tree of Oregon politics.

Former Congressman Robert B. Duncan, died Friday in Portland at the age of 90. He will long be remembered for what he achieved in reviving the Oregon Democratic Party in the years after World War II and being elected to represent two of Oregon's congressional districts during the 1960s and 1970s where he championed such great causes as civil rights and the war on poverty.

He will also be remembered as someone who bravely took on two of Oregon's iconic figures. Bob Duncan ran unsuccessfully for the U.S. Senate three times, narrowly losing to names that are familiar to everyone in this room--Wayne Morse and Mark Hatfield.

On a personal note, I might also add that Bob Duncan was the incumbent and my opponent in the 1980 primary race for Oregon's 3rd Congressional District. When I won that race I was afraid that I had made an enemy for life out of someone who was revered in State Democratic circles. I couldn't have been more wrong. He reached out to me and became both a friend and a supporter.

Throughout his life, Bob Duncan was a major force in Oregon politics, shaping the state through his various roles as speaker of the Oregon House to influential member of the House appropriations subcommittee on transportation where he played a key role in bringing light rail to the streets of Portland. His public life ended in 1987 when he stepped down as chairman of the Northwest Power Planning Council.

Bob's service in Congress covered a pivotal time in American politics the war in Vietnam. In 1966, at the urging of President Lyndon Johnson, Bob gave up his congressional seat from southern Oregon to run for the Senate against then-Governor Mark Hatfield. It was a nationally watched race pitting Duncan, a proponent of the war,

against Hatfield, one of the Nation's earliest opponents of the United States' Vietnam policy.

Two years later, Bob lost by only about 10,000 votes when he ran against Wayne Morse in the Democratic primary for Oregon's other Senate seat. Morse eventually lost to Republican Bob Packwood. In 1972, he lost again to Morse in a Democratic primary for the U.S. Senate.

Never one to remain idle, Duncan having moved to Portland, won an open congressional seat in 1974, making him the only person in Oregon history to represent U.S. House districts in different parts of the State.

But Bob Duncan's life should not be defined by races won and lost. He was a tireless advocate for civil liberties, civil rights and eliminating the scourge of poverty in America. His friends and you can count me among them remember him as tenacious and hard working with a brilliant legal mind.

I will always remember him as a larger-than-life figure who loved telling stories and never let politics getting in the way of doing what he felt was right. Despite running a hard-fought race against each other, Duncan and Mark Hatfield became close friends and working partners. Thanks to Hatfield's efforts, a government building in downtown Portland now bears Duncan's name.

Please join me in extending my condolences to his wife Kathryn and his children. All of Oregon shares in their loss.

Madam President, I rise to make a parliamentary inquiry.

The Senate will soon receive from the House legislation to fund the Federal Government for the rest of this year--H.R. 1473. Normally, spending bills such as this one go through the Appropriations Committee. Despite the fact that this spending bill the Senate will soon take up covers funding for the entire Federal Government, including all appropriations bills for the year, it was never even considered by the House or Senate Appropriations Committees.

Snuck into this massive spending bill are legislative provisions that typically are not allowed by Senate rules to be included in the appropriations process. The Senate has a rule--rule XVI--that prohibits Senate legislative amendments to an appropriations bill. Despite this Senate rule, the spending bill the Senate will consider today includes provisions that are clearly legislative in nature. Specifically, I am referring to section 1858 of the spending bill which repeals free choice vouchers from the affordable care act that became law last year.

There should be no doubt that repealing a law or part of a law is legislating. In this case, section 1858 repeals part of the Internal Revenue Code. Amending the Internal Revenue Code is general legislation, not the appropriation of funds. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office has actually determined that free choice vouchers involve no appropriation of funds whatsoever.

Madam President, my parliamentary inquiry is whether repealing free choice vouchers in the spending bill the Senate will soon consider is legislating on an appropriations bill.

I thank the Chair for making this very clear; that repealing free choice vouchers--the opportunity to come up with a marketplace-oriented approach for people in a health care no man's land--in this spending bill is clearly legislating on an appropriations bill and that is not the way the Senate traditionally does business.

If this provision were brought up in the Senate, we now know it would be ruled out of order. It would be ruled out of order because in the Senate we simply do not legislate on appropriations bills. The Senate doesn't legislate on appropriations bills for a simple reason. Every Senator knows it would be open season for the special interest lobbyists all over this town.

The administration and this body took a stand earlier this year against earmarking--something the Chair is very much aware of--and I wish to quote from the President's State of the Union Address. The President said: The American people deserve to know that special interests aren't larding up legislation with pet projects. Both parties in Congress should know this: If a bill comes to my desk with earmarks inside it, I will veto it.

Madam President, I wish to have somebody explain the difference between letting a lobbyist slip an earmark into an appropriations bill and slipping legislative language into an appropriations bill that benefits a whole array of special interest lobbyists. It sure seems to have the same effect to me.

I am not certain who proposed eliminating free choice vouchers in this appropriations deal. Maybe a lobbyist asked for it or maybe some staffer with special interest sympathies saw an opportunity to send the lobbyist what one lobbyist called today ``an early Easter gift.'' But either way, I know with 100 percent certainty this decision was not made with the public interest in mind. The American people are not the ones who benefit from eliminating free choice vouchers. The American people like the idea of being able to have choices for their health care--choices, I would point out, that are much like the ones we have as Members of Congress.

The fact is this is one provision in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act that combined the thinking of colleagues on both sides of the aisle--Democrats who wanted to expand coverage and Republicans who have an interest in choice and competition. This was the one provision that provided a concrete path to holding down health care costs, and it has now been gutted by the special interests.

Some special interests are arguing that free choice vouchers would in some way harm employer-based health coverage. What we know for certain is that for the group of people who could access a free choice voucher, the employer-based health system is dysfunctional. It is dysfunctional for them. The group of people who are covered by free choice vouchers-- folks who aren't eligible for the exchanges and folks who aren't eligible for subsidies--now have only two choices: coverage that is completely unavailable or coverage that is completely unaffordable.

The chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, at the time free choice vouchers was accepted, specifically talked about how this filled a gap in the bill. And now, with it gone, more than 300,000 Americans aren't going to have a path to affordable, good quality coverage. Free choice vouchers were needed at the time we worked on the affordable care act and they are even more necessary today.

For example, the Kaiser Family Foundation, in their most recent analysis, has demonstrated how consistently, again and again, more health care costs are being shifted onto the backs of American workers. In their most recent analysis, they found that employee health expenses in the last year have gone up 14 percent, and the employee was eating almost all of that. Almost all of it was being shifted onto the backs of the workers.

This was important today--it was important when we moved originally to enact the legislation. It is even more important today. The fact is, these individuals are only looking for another path because the system does not work for them. If it worked for them, we would not even have an issue. But as the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee pointed out, this is a gap in the system, a gap that, had we been able to sustain free choice vouchers and stop the lobbyists from stripping them out, we would have had a way to ensure that hundreds and hundreds of thousands of hard-working Americans--these are folks who work at jobs-- would still be able to go to sleep at night knowing they had decent, good-quality, affordable coverage for themselves and their families.

The Senate does not legislate on appropriations bills because, as the President said so appropriately, we should be working to rebuild people's faith in the institution of government. We do not slip legislative language into these kinds of bills that benefits a few special interest groups at the expense of hundreds of thousands of Americans. This is not the way we do business.

Throughout 2009, I promised my constituents that I would not support health care reforms unless they were real reforms. This legislation lets special interest groups take real reform out of the health care law. It seems to me that, all over this town, the special interest groups are looking at the bill and they are saying now it is going to be possible, if we can just find, behind closed doors, some allies to take away real cost containment, real opportunities for good-quality, affordable coverage for people. This legislation takes real reform out of the health care law. Because I keep my promises, I will not support it.

I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, on April 14, the Government of France will present the National Order of the Legion of Honor to Edgar Peara one of Oregon's more modest heroes.

The Ordre national de la Legion d'honneur was established by Napoleon Bonaparte in 1802 as a way of recognizing exceptional merit regardless of rank, class, or privilege. The Order remains the highest decoration in France and is being bestowed upon Edgar for his service in that country during World War II.

Already highly decorated by the United States for bravery and valor, Edgar's story is indeed remarkable and worthy of high praise. After the bombing of Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, Edgar immediately volunteered for the military. At first he was told he would be more valuable to the Nation if he returned to his engineer studies, but the call to action was too strong. By June 1942 he received a commission in the U.S. Army and was assigned as an officer in the 531 Amphibious Combat Regiment of the 1st Engineer Amphibious Combat Brigade.

His unit specialized in supporting large amphibious invasions, clearing the way for the infantry and keeping the Army on the move. By November 1942, Edgar's outfit landed in Arzew, Algeria, where Edgar, determined to keep the situation as calm as possible, went from house to house telling anxious Algerians unfamiliar with war or Americans that ``we come in peace. We are not here to harm anyone. We simply want you to surrender any weapons so that all armed resistance ceases.'' He said later that ``No one gave us any trouble and we collected so many arms we could hardly carry them all.''

This action set the tone for Edgar's entire war experience and his later life. As he prepared for the invasion of Italy, Edgar made a conscious effort to look for, and be grateful for, whatever there was to be appreciated that day, whether it was food, a dry place to sleep, reasonable weather, the friendships of comrades, and being well and safe. As Edgar put it, ``That change in attitude helped make me a happier person, for I stopped thinking that my contentment had to lie in the future when the war was over.''

After participating in the invasions of Sicily and mainland Italy, Edgar was moved to the southwest coast of England in order to help ready allied forces for D-day. He landed at Utah Beach on the upper French coast on June 6, 1944. Early that morning he noticed a battalion medical aid station was under intense fire. Recognizing the danger to those helpless soldiers, he scrambled to find a more protected area. He came across an abandoned German concrete underground command post. Dodging bullets and shells, he ran back to help move the wounded to safety.

Edgar would later be part of the invasion of Okinawa, Japan, making him one of the few veterans to serve in Africa, Europe, and the Pacific.

Taking what he learned from his experiences in war, Edgar dedicated himself to a life of internal peace and became a staunch advocate of greater peace for all humanity. He used his GI Bill to train for ordination as a Christian Science practitioner. During the Korean war, Edgar served as a Christian Science chaplain at the U.S. Naval Training Center, Great Lakes, IL. After this duty he went on to become a Unitarian Universalist minister. Edgar has worked diligently to help others find the same peace he discovered in his own heart and to help all mankind achieve greater peace between neighbors and nations.

As an Oregonian, I could not be more proud of Edgar, his wonderful story, and his life's work. He truly is a hero and embodies the best of our State. As our Nation continues to struggle in conflicts overseas, Edgar serves as a testament to the belief that sometime restraint is as powerful as force in times of war. I am very appreciative of Edgar's selfless service.The people of France are thanking him today with this award. Oregon thanks him for continuing to make us proud.

Madam President, in one cruel swoop late last week, more than 300,000 Americans lost the opportunity to buy affordable health insurance for years to come. Specifically, I am talking about the removal behind closed doors by budget negotiators of the free choice voucher provision that would have been a lifeline to hundreds of thousands of low-income Americans.

One could say: Senator Wyden, everybody has to give a little during tough times. Why is this different?

The difference is that hundreds of thousands of Americans without health care options, in a process that doesn't even have any direct cost to the Federal budget, are being asked to give up a guarantee of coverage just a year after passage of the Affordable Care Act. They are going to be forced to make a Hobson's choice between unaffordable insurance and going without health care, directly contradicting the theoretical underpinnings of the Affordable Care Act. Under that provision, those whose income falls below 400 percent of the poverty line and whose employer-sponsored health insurance premiums are between 8 and just under 10 percent would be exempt from having to purchase health coverage.

Unfortunately, now that they do not have access to the exchanges, they will also not qualify for government assistance to insurance. The provision leaves hundreds of thousands of Americans who need health care as a lifeline out in the cold.

With free choice, however, folks who fell into this hole and couldn't afford the plan they were offered at work could use their employer's contribution. They could have gotten a voucher to choose a more appropriate affordable plan in the exchange. The amount of the voucher would be set at the same percentage that employers pay today: 70 percent of the cost of a typical plan. The amount would be fixed, giving employers certainty in the cost of doing business. For these families, it could mean the difference between being able to buy a health plan they could afford or going without coverage. If they found a plan in the exchange that's cheaper that was cheaper than the voucher amount, but gave them everything they needed, they could have pocketed the difference in cost. This gives that family an incentive to shop for lower cost coverage and helps hold down everyone's health care costs.

This kind of concept is not only good for the employee, it is good for our businesses, particularly the small businesses that so strongly back this provision. When the impact of free choice was proposed during the health reform debate, the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that more than 300,000 families could benefit from this new approach to choice and competition. That was then.

Since passage of the health care reform law, the need for free choice vouchers is greater than ever. The Kaiser Family Foundation, in their recent analysis, found that employers, even since the law, are shifting more of the health care cost on to the backs of the workers. In that analysis, The Kaiser Family Foundation reported that the typical increase for family coverage went up three percent on average last year, but the cost for the typical worker went up 14 percent. The employer was paying virtually none of that increase. The worker was eating almost all of it because costs were being shifted from employers on to the backs of the workers. So if anything, even more people would likely need free choice vouchers, and would have been eligible to use them, than was originally envisioned when we passed the law.

I am of the view that it is not that businesses don't want to provide affordable benefits to workers. It is just making less and less sense to do so given the way the current system operates. Incentives would not change in 2014, leaving an increasing number of families with a choice between the unaffordable and the unavailable. Up until late last week, in the dark of night, those families had a choice. They had a choice, a third path. The two that I mentioned, unaffordable and unavailable, were not very appealing, and free choice vouchers would have created a third option that would have worked for those families. They would have had a chance to take their pretax dollars provided by their employer to the free market exchange and decide for themselves which plans they could afford that provide the benefits they need.

Free choice is good for workers, it is good for business, it is good for our country's bottom line; it offers a way to rein in higher health care costs by putting purchasing power back into the hands of the consumer. Once people know they are paying for their health coverage and can shop for a plan that answers their specific needs, costs will come down.

We hear often colleagues on both sides of the aisle talk about choice and competition and market forces. What this did was provide a chance for both sides to take principles they hold dear, expanding coverage with a market based approach for workers who are hurting, and say: Free choice vouchers can do that. The arguments against free choice didn't start with Democrats or Republicans. The arguments started with the interest groups, the lobbies, the special interests that have a vested stake in holding their employees captive and locking them into this incredibly inefficient status quo.

This provision has no budget impact in the fiscal year. Three hundred thousand low-income Americans are being hurt in this budget bill for something that spends no money in the upcoming year; 300,000 Americans with no acceptable alternative to make sure that when they go to bed at night with their families they can take care of an illness or a medical expense that comes up in the morning.

I don't think this had to be. Clearly, if we had had the opportunity in an open forum to address this, there would have been a different result because that is how it got into the law in the first place. I want to make sure colleagues know we will have to be back here to get some relief for the 300,000 Americans we put out in the cold as a result of that particular provision. I hope, once again, we can do it in a fashion that brings Democrats and Republicans together the way free choice vouchers and the principles it represents did in the first place.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, this month the Oregon Air National Guard is celebrating its 70th anniversary.

``We've got people, we've got a place, and we're ready!'' These were the historic words written in a request by Major G. Robert Dodson, an Oregonian assigned to organize and command the first squadron of Oregon National Guard Air Corps.

Ready as Major Dodson was, it hadn't happened quickly or easily. It took several years to get the squadron assembled. General George A. White, Oregon's Adjutant General, requested a squadron as early as August 1939, but didn't receive official authorization to form the squadron from the National Guard Bureau until August 1, 1940. On April 18, 1941, Major Dodson assembled a group of 117 volunteers to form the 123rd Observation Squadron.

Less than 8 months later, these Airmen were the first to conduct maritime surveillance of the continental United States following the December 7, 1941, attack on Pearl Harbor.

For the most part, their job was to conduct surveillance on the enemy. However, they did on at least one occasion ignore their orders to ``stick to taking pictures'' and dropped ordnance instead. It was not without good reason. It seems that the Japanese they targeted had sunk the ship carrying the unit's beer rations. Their improvised attack wasn't appreciated by their commander, but even back then getting between Oregonians and their beer didn't go unpunished.

After the war, the Air National Guard was established as a separate component of the U.S. Air Force. Since being formally designated the Oregon Air National Guard, our State's aviators have played a vital role in Korea, the cold war, and in military operations throughout the world since the tragic events of 9/11. Seventy years and 15 different aircraft models since their inception, the number of citizen-airmen has increased more than twentyfold to 2,000.

Today, our Nation relies on F-15s from the Oregon Air National Guard to perform the air sovereignty mission for the entire Pacific Northwest. Our twin-engine, air superiority fighter jets--Eagles--fly upwards of Mach 2 to intercept any threat along our Nation's border. Additionally, the Oregon Air National Guard trains new Air Force pilots at Kingsley Field in Klamath Falls.

They are not only there for our Nation in times of war, but they answer the call of the Governor during natural disasters. When flooding threatened hundreds of lives in Vernonia, OR, in 2007 it was the Oregon Air National Guard's 125th Special Tactics Squadron that was first on the scene. They saved hundreds of people from the rising water.

Today's Oregon Air National Guard units include the 142nd Fighter Wing, 125th Special Tactics Squadron and 123rd Weather Flight in Portland, the 173rd Fighter Wing and 270th Air Traffic Control Squadron in Klamath Falls, Joint Force Headquarter in Salem, and the 116th Air Control Squadron in Warrenton.

As an Oregonian and as their Senator, I could not be more proud of today's Oregon Air National Guard and its rich heritage. It is an honor to serve these heroes; active, retired, and those that have given their lives. I am very appreciative of their 70 years of selfless service and sacrifice. The people of Oregon thank every member of this pillar of freedom.

Mr. President, today, along with my colleagues Senators Sessions, McCaskill, Thune, Boxer, and Graham, I am introducing the Crime Victim Restitution and Court Fee Intercept Act. This bipartisan bill would help crime victims and state courts recover the restitution and fees that are owed to them. This bill would accomplish this worthy goal by intercepting tax refunds of deadbeat debtors who've failed to pay restitution or court fees. If enacted, this bill would essentially allow state courts to cross-reference outstanding debts with the IRS and use existing procedures to withhold tax refunds in order to satisfy past due debts.

This bill would not only deliver justice to crime victims who are owed restitution, but would also provide much-needed resources to help keep court rooms open and court programs operating. At a time when our State and local governments are struggling to find funding for vital programs--including keeping courthouse doors open--unpaid court fees represent an important source of revenue that should be captured. This bill would help close budget gaps and provide additional revenue without raising taxes or imposing any new costs or burdens. In fact, participation in the program would be optional for States, but I expect most States to participate and to benefit greatly from this bill.

This bill would operate the same way as the very successful child support debt collection system. The bill will allow states to share information on outstanding restitution owed and court debts with the IRS, which would then be required to intercept any Federal tax refunds of debtors and send that money to the victim or court owed that debt.

It has been estimated by the National Center for State Courts that outstanding court debts across the country total approximately $15 billion. In my home state of Oregon alone, the outstanding restitution and court fee debt amount is $987 million. Only a portion of outstanding debts are owed by individuals who will receive Federal tax refunds, so a portion of court debts would not be collected immediately. Nonetheless, the state of Oregon estimates that passage of this bill would allow the State to collect $30 million per year.

Without this straight-forward and efficient mechanism, the collection of victim restitution and court debts is a costly and time-consuming process. Enactment of this bill would reduce the fiscal cost and administrative burden that victims and courts bear in attempting to collect those debts. Again, in the midst of a challenging fiscal crisis, it only makes common sense to collect revenues that are already owed--through an efficient and convenient method.

Because this bill would benefit both the court system, and those who rely upon it, the Crime Victim Restitution and Court Fee Intercept Act is endorsed by a broad array of court, government, law enforcement, and crime victims' organizations. I would like to especially recognize the National Center for State Courts and the American Bar Association for their support in getting this bill introduced.

The bill is also supported by the Conference of Chief Justices, the Conference of State Court Administrators, the National Association for Court Managers, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the National Association of Counties, the Government Finance Officers Association, the National District Attorneys Association, the American Probation and Parole Association, the National Crime Law Institute, the National Center for Victims of Crime, the National Organization for Victim Assistance, the National Association of Crime Victim Compensation Boards, the National Association of VOCA Assistance Administrators, the National Network to End Domestic Violence, the National Alliance to End Sexual Violence, the National Organization of Parents of Murdered Children Inc., and Mothers Against Drunk Driving.

I urge all colleagues to support this bipartisan legislation and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Grassley to introduce the Medicare Data Access for Transparency and Accountability Act. I would like to begin by thanking my friend and esteemed colleague for his unwavering commitment to greater transparency and accountability in government. This Medicare DATA Act advances that goal.

Sunshine continues to be the greatest disinfectant. In that light, the Medicare DATA Act ensures all taxpayers have access to the Medicare Claims Database, both to aid them in making medical decisions, and in understanding what their money is paying for in this vital, yet enormous, health program. Making this information public will also help prevent wasteful spending and outright fraud in Medicare claims. The Medicare Claims Database is an important resource for public and private stakeholders as it captures healthcare provider payment and claims information for roughly 1/3 of the United States healthcare system. But why isn't this information already available?

In 1978, the Department of Health Education and Welfare attempted to release this information, upon request, under the premise that accessibility to the source data was in the public interest and therefore should be made available for public consumption. An injunction by a Florida court, however, successfully blocked that public disclosure of this information. As a result, this data has been--with limited exceptions made for government employees, contractors, and researchers willing to pay for partial access--off limits for the last three decades. Passage of the Medicare DATA Act puts an end to that practice.

I consider hiding information affecting the American taxpayer that clearly should be in the public domain, to be indefensible in a free society. With this principle in mind, I join with Senator Grassley in changing ``business as usual.''

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation so that Medicare data is finally fully transparent and available to Medicare beneficiaries and taxpayers alike. I look forward to working with my colleagues in this effort.

Mr. President, part of my job as a Senator from a beautiful State like Oregon is to keep that beauty protected for the next generation of Oregonians. Today it is my pleasure to reintroduce three bills to better protect three of Oregon's special natural resources, S. 764, 765, and 766. I have introduced all of these bills before, one of these in both of the last two Congresses. The Oregon Caves Revitalization Act of 2011 was first introduced in 2008, and again in the last Congress. It progressed out of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee in the last Congress but unfortunately there wasn't an opportunity to vote on it on the Senate Floor. The Devil's Staircase Wilderness Act of 2011 also moved out of the Committee but failed to get a vote in the full Senate. The Chetco River Protection Act of 2011 was also introduced last session, but there was not enough time to get a hearing before the Senate adjourned. I am pleased to again introduce these bills with my colleague from Oregon, Senator Merkley. My colleague in the House of Representatives, Representative DeFazio, will also be introducing companion legislation today.

The first bill I am introducing, the Oregon Caves Revitalization Act of 2011, will expand the boundary of the National Park Service land to create the Oregon Caves National Monument and Preserve. Under this bill, the stunning majesty of both the underground and the aboveground treasures found at this National Monument site will be protected for future generations.

Established by a Presidential Proclamation in 1909, the Oregon Caves National Monument is a 480-acre natural wonder located in the botanically-rich Siskiyou Mountains. It was originally set aside because of its unusual scientific interest and importance. Oregon Caves has a unique geologic history and is particularly known as the longest marble cave open to the public west of the Continental Divide.

A perennial stream, the ``River Styx''--an underground portion of Cave Creek--flows through part of the cave and is one of the dynamic natural forces at work in the National Monument. The cave ecosystem provides habitat for numerous plants and animals, including some state- sensitive species such as Townsend's big-eared

bats and several cave-adapted species of arthropods found only in only one place on Earth: the Oregon Caves. The caves possess a significant collection of Pleistocene aged fossils, including jaguar and grizzly bear. In 1995, grizzly bear bones found in the cave were estimated to be at least 50,000 years old, the oldest known from either North or South America.

Today, I am proposing legislation that will enhance the protection for treasures such as these found within the Oregon Caves National Monument and that will increase public recreation opportunities by adding surrounding lands to the National Park Service site. My bill would expand the park site by 4,070 acres to include the entire Cave Creek Watershed, and transfer management of the land from the United States Forest Service to the National Park Service. The newly acquired lands will be designated as a Preserve so that hunters can still use them. In addition, my legislation would designate at least 9.6 miles of rivers and tributaries as Wild, Scenic, or Recreational, under the federal Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, including the first subterranean Wild and Scenic River, the River Styx. This bill would also authorize the retirement of existing grazing allotments.

When the Oregon Caves National Monument was established in 1909, the focus was on the unique subsurface resources, and the small rectangular boundary was thought to be adequate to protect the cave. Through the years, however, scientific research and technology have provided new information about the cave's ecology, and the impacts from the surface environment and the related hydrological processes. The current 480- acre boundary simply can't adequately protect this cave system. The National Park Service has formally proposed a boundary modification numerous times, first in 1939, again in 1949, and most recently in 2000. Today, I am happy to again propose legislation to enact that boundary adjustment into law.

The Oregon Caves National Monument makes a unique contribution to Southern Oregon's economy and to the national heritage. The Monument receives over 80,000 visitors annually and a larger Monument boundary will help showcase more fully the recreational opportunities on the above-ground lands within the proposed Monument boundary. The Monument's above-ground lands in the Siskiyou Mountains possess a beauty and diversity that is unique in America, and indeed the world. The Oregon Caves National Monument's approximately 500 plants, 5,000 animals, 2,000 fungi, and over a million bacteria per acre that make the spot have one of the highest concentrations of biological diversity anywhere.

Expanding the Monument's boundary will also preserve the caves' resources by protecting the water that enters the cave. By granting the National Park Service the ability to safeguard these resources, and by providing for a voluntary donation of grazing permits, my legislation will be able to better protect these resources. Over the decades, the number of allowed livestock has diminished, but the livestock still has an impact on the drinking water supply and the water quality of this natural gem. The current grazing permitee, Phil Krouse's family, has had the Big Grayback Grazing Allotment, 19,703 acre, since 1937. Mr. Krouse has publicly stated that he would look favorably upon retirement with private compensation for his allotment, which my legislation will allow to proceed.

The second bill I am introducing is the Devil's Staircase Wilderness Act of 2011, which designates approximately 30,540 acres surrounding the Wasson Creek area as Wilderness. Devil's Staircase personifies what Wilderness in Oregon is all about. It is rugged, wild, pristine and remote. So rugged, in fact, that land managers have repeatedly withdrawn this landslide-prone forest from all timbering activity and intrepid hikers must follow elk and deer trails and keep a sharp eye on a compass. The proposed Devil's Staircase Wilderness is the finest old- growth forest remaining in Oregon's Coast Range, boasting huge Douglas- fir, cedar and hemlock and a wealth of threatened and endangered species. Wildlife include threatened marbled murrelets and the highest density of Northern Spotted Owls in the coastal mountains.

My proposal would not only protect the forests surrounding Wasson Creek but would also designate approximately 4.5 miles of Franklin Creek and approximately 10.1 miles of Wasson Creek as Wild and Scenic Rivers. Franklin Creek, a critically important tributary to the Umpqua River, is one of the best examples of pristine salmon habitat left in Oregon. Together with Wasson Creek, these two streams in the Devil's Staircase area deserve Wild and Scenic River designation by Congress.

The ecological significance of this treasure is apparent. The land is protected as a Late-Successional Reserve by the Northwest Forest Plan, as critical habitat for the northern spotted owl, and as an Area of Critical Environmental Concern by the Bureau of Land Management. Preserving these majestic forests as Wilderness for their wildlife and spectacular scenery matches the goals of the existing land management plans. I look forward to protecting this gem for future generations.

For over a decade, I've advocated for protections for the Chetco and other threatened waterways in Southwest Oregon. I'm reintroducing a third piece of legislation today that would continue that effort. The Chetco River Protection Act of 2011 would withdraw about three miles of the Chetco River from mineral entry, while upgrading the designations for some portions.

This river is under immediate threat from out-of-state suction dredge miners. The group American Rivers said last year that the Chetco was the seventh most endangered river in the country because of those threats. This is a river that is hugely important for salmon habitat and local sport fishing. The passage of this legislation would mean protecting that habitat, and promoting the continued success of the fishing industry throughout the West Coast.

Withdrawing these portions of the river from future mineral entry will prevent future harmful mining claims and make sure that those claims that already exist are valid I am pleased the Obama administration has taken some steps to protect this area, but the passage of this legislation is needed to ensure long-term protection for this important river.

Finally, I want to express my thanks to the conservation, recreation and business communities of Southern and Coastal Oregon, and Phil Krouse for his strong conservation ethic. All of them have worked diligently to protect these special places. I look forward to working with Senator Merkley, Representative DeFazio, and other colleagues and the bill's other supporters to keep up the fight for these unique places in Oregon and get these pieces of legislation to the President's desk for his signature.

Mr. President, today, along with my colleagues Senators Sessions, McCaskill, Thune, Boxer, and Graham, I am introducing the Crime Victim Restitution and Court Fee Intercept Act. This bipartisan bill would help crime victims and state courts recover the restitution and fees that are owed to them. This bill would accomplish this worthy goal by intercepting tax refunds of deadbeat debtors who've failed to pay restitution or court fees. If enacted, this bill would essentially allow state courts to cross-reference outstanding debts with the IRS and use existing procedures to withhold tax refunds in order to satisfy past due debts.

This bill would not only deliver justice to crime victims who are owed restitution, but would also provide much-needed resources to help keep court rooms open and court programs operating. At a time when our State and local governments are struggling to find funding for vital programs--including keeping courthouse doors open--unpaid court fees represent an important source of revenue that should be captured. This bill would help close budget gaps and provide additional revenue without raising taxes or imposing any new costs or burdens. In fact, participation in the program would be optional for States, but I expect most States to participate and to benefit greatly from this bill.

This bill would operate the same way as the very successful child support debt collection system. The bill will allow states to share information on outstanding restitution owed and court debts with the IRS, which would then be required to intercept any Federal tax refunds of debtors and send that money to the victim or court owed that debt.

It has been estimated by the National Center for State Courts that outstanding court debts across the country total approximately $15 billion. In my home state of Oregon alone, the outstanding restitution and court fee debt amount is $987 million. Only a portion of outstanding debts are owed by individuals who will receive Federal tax refunds, so a portion of court debts would not be collected immediately. Nonetheless, the state of Oregon estimates that passage of this bill would allow the State to collect $30 million per year.

Without this straight-forward and efficient mechanism, the collection of victim restitution and court debts is a costly and time-consuming process. Enactment of this bill would reduce the fiscal cost and administrative burden that victims and courts bear in attempting to collect those debts. Again, in the midst of a challenging fiscal crisis, it only makes common sense to collect revenues that are already owed--through an efficient and convenient method.

Because this bill would benefit both the court system, and those who rely upon it, the Crime Victim Restitution and Court Fee Intercept Act is endorsed by a broad array of court, government, law enforcement, and crime victims' organizations. I would like to especially recognize the National Center for State Courts and the American Bar Association for their support in getting this bill introduced.

The bill is also supported by the Conference of Chief Justices, the Conference of State Court Administrators, the National Association for Court Managers, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the National Association of Counties, the Government Finance Officers Association, the National District Attorneys Association, the American Probation and Parole Association, the National Crime Law Institute, the National Center for Victims of Crime, the National Organization for Victim Assistance, the National Association of Crime Victim Compensation Boards, the National Association of VOCA Assistance Administrators, the National Network to End Domestic Violence, the National Alliance to End Sexual Violence, the National Organization of Parents of Murdered Children Inc., and Mothers Against Drunk Driving.

I urge all colleagues to support this bipartisan legislation and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Grassley to introduce the Medicare Data Access for Transparency and Accountability Act. I would like to begin by thanking my friend and esteemed colleague for his unwavering commitment to greater transparency and accountability in government. This Medicare DATA Act advances that goal.

Sunshine continues to be the greatest disinfectant. In that light, the Medicare DATA Act ensures all taxpayers have access to the Medicare Claims Database, both to aid them in making medical decisions, and in understanding what their money is paying for in this vital, yet enormous, health program. Making this information public will also help prevent wasteful spending and outright fraud in Medicare claims. The Medicare Claims Database is an important resource for public and private stakeholders as it captures healthcare provider payment and claims information for roughly 1/3 of the United States healthcare system. But why isn't this information already available?

In 1978, the Department of Health Education and Welfare attempted to release this information, upon request, under the premise that accessibility to the source data was in the public interest and therefore should be made available for public consumption. An injunction by a Florida court, however, successfully blocked that public disclosure of this information. As a result, this data has been--with limited exceptions made for government employees, contractors, and researchers willing to pay for partial access--off limits for the last three decades. Passage of the Medicare DATA Act puts an end to that practice.

I consider hiding information affecting the American taxpayer that clearly should be in the public domain, to be indefensible in a free society. With this principle in mind, I join with Senator Grassley in changing ``business as usual.''

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation so that Medicare data is finally fully transparent and available to Medicare beneficiaries and taxpayers alike. I look forward to working with my colleagues in this effort.

Mr. President, part of my job as a Senator from a beautiful State like Oregon is to keep that beauty protected for the next generation of Oregonians. Today it is my pleasure to reintroduce three bills to better protect three of Oregon's special natural resources, S. 764, 765, and 766. I have introduced all of these bills before, one of these in both of the last two Congresses. The Oregon Caves Revitalization Act of 2011 was first introduced in 2008, and again in the last Congress. It progressed out of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee in the last Congress but unfortunately there wasn't an opportunity to vote on it on the Senate Floor. The Devil's Staircase Wilderness Act of 2011 also moved out of the Committee but failed to get a vote in the full Senate. The Chetco River Protection Act of 2011 was also introduced last session, but there was not enough time to get a hearing before the Senate adjourned. I am pleased to again introduce these bills with my colleague from Oregon, Senator Merkley. My colleague in the House of Representatives, Representative DeFazio, will also be introducing companion legislation today.

The first bill I am introducing, the Oregon Caves Revitalization Act of 2011, will expand the boundary of the National Park Service land to create the Oregon Caves National Monument and Preserve. Under this bill, the stunning majesty of both the underground and the aboveground treasures found at this National Monument site will be protected for future generations.

Established by a Presidential Proclamation in 1909, the Oregon Caves National Monument is a 480-acre natural wonder located in the botanically-rich Siskiyou Mountains. It was originally set aside because of its unusual scientific interest and importance. Oregon Caves has a unique geologic history and is particularly known as the longest marble cave open to the public west of the Continental Divide.

A perennial stream, the ``River Styx''--an underground portion of Cave Creek--flows through part of the cave and is one of the dynamic natural forces at work in the National Monument. The cave ecosystem provides habitat for numerous plants and animals, including some state- sensitive species such as Townsend's big-eared

bats and several cave-adapted species of arthropods found only in only one place on Earth: the Oregon Caves. The caves possess a significant collection of Pleistocene aged fossils, including jaguar and grizzly bear. In 1995, grizzly bear bones found in the cave were estimated to be at least 50,000 years old, the oldest known from either North or South America.

Today, I am proposing legislation that will enhance the protection for treasures such as these found within the Oregon Caves National Monument and that will increase public recreation opportunities by adding surrounding lands to the National Park Service site. My bill would expand the park site by 4,070 acres to include the entire Cave Creek Watershed, and transfer management of the land from the United States Forest Service to the National Park Service. The newly acquired lands will be designated as a Preserve so that hunters can still use them. In addition, my legislation would designate at least 9.6 miles of rivers and tributaries as Wild, Scenic, or Recreational, under the federal Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, including the first subterranean Wild and Scenic River, the River Styx. This bill would also authorize the retirement of existing grazing allotments.

When the Oregon Caves National Monument was established in 1909, the focus was on the unique subsurface resources, and the small rectangular boundary was thought to be adequate to protect the cave. Through the years, however, scientific research and technology have provided new information about the cave's ecology, and the impacts from the surface environment and the related hydrological processes. The current 480- acre boundary simply can't adequately protect this cave system. The National Park Service has formally proposed a boundary modification numerous times, first in 1939, again in 1949, and most recently in 2000. Today, I am happy to again propose legislation to enact that boundary adjustment into law.

The Oregon Caves National Monument makes a unique contribution to Southern Oregon's economy and to the national heritage. The Monument receives over 80,000 visitors annually and a larger Monument boundary will help showcase more fully the recreational opportunities on the above-ground lands within the proposed Monument boundary. The Monument's above-ground lands in the Siskiyou Mountains possess a beauty and diversity that is unique in America, and indeed the world. The Oregon Caves National Monument's approximately 500 plants, 5,000 animals, 2,000 fungi, and over a million bacteria per acre that make the spot have one of the highest concentrations of biological diversity anywhere.

Expanding the Monument's boundary will also preserve the caves' resources by protecting the water that enters the cave. By granting the National Park Service the ability to safeguard these resources, and by providing for a voluntary donation of grazing permits, my legislation will be able to better protect these resources. Over the decades, the number of allowed livestock has diminished, but the livestock still has an impact on the drinking water supply and the water quality of this natural gem. The current grazing permitee, Phil Krouse's family, has had the Big Grayback Grazing Allotment, 19,703 acre, since 1937. Mr. Krouse has publicly stated that he would look favorably upon retirement with private compensation for his allotment, which my legislation will allow to proceed.

The second bill I am introducing is the Devil's Staircase Wilderness Act of 2011, which designates approximately 30,540 acres surrounding the Wasson Creek area as Wilderness. Devil's Staircase personifies what Wilderness in Oregon is all about. It is rugged, wild, pristine and remote. So rugged, in fact, that land managers have repeatedly withdrawn this landslide-prone forest from all timbering activity and intrepid hikers must follow elk and deer trails and keep a sharp eye on a compass. The proposed Devil's Staircase Wilderness is the finest old- growth forest remaining in Oregon's Coast Range, boasting huge Douglas- fir, cedar and hemlock and a wealth of threatened and endangered species. Wildlife include threatened marbled murrelets and the highest density of Northern Spotted Owls in the coastal mountains.

My proposal would not only protect the forests surrounding Wasson Creek but would also designate approximately 4.5 miles of Franklin Creek and approximately 10.1 miles of Wasson Creek as Wild and Scenic Rivers. Franklin Creek, a critically important tributary to the Umpqua River, is one of the best examples of pristine salmon habitat left in Oregon. Together with Wasson Creek, these two streams in the Devil's Staircase area deserve Wild and Scenic River designation by Congress.

The ecological significance of this treasure is apparent. The land is protected as a Late-Successional Reserve by the Northwest Forest Plan, as critical habitat for the northern spotted owl, and as an Area of Critical Environmental Concern by the Bureau of Land Management. Preserving these majestic forests as Wilderness for their wildlife and spectacular scenery matches the goals of the existing land management plans. I look forward to protecting this gem for future generations.

For over a decade, I've advocated for protections for the Chetco and other threatened waterways in Southwest Oregon. I'm reintroducing a third piece of legislation today that would continue that effort. The Chetco River Protection Act of 2011 would withdraw about three miles of the Chetco River from mineral entry, while upgrading the designations for some portions.

This river is under immediate threat from out-of-state suction dredge miners. The group American Rivers said last year that the Chetco was the seventh most endangered river in the country because of those threats. This is a river that is hugely important for salmon habitat and local sport fishing. The passage of this legislation would mean protecting that habitat, and promoting the continued success of the fishing industry throughout the West Coast.

Withdrawing these portions of the river from future mineral entry will prevent future harmful mining claims and make sure that those claims that already exist are valid I am pleased the Obama administration has taken some steps to protect this area, but the passage of this legislation is needed to ensure long-term protection for this important river.

Finally, I want to express my thanks to the conservation, recreation and business communities of Southern and Coastal Oregon, and Phil Krouse for his strong conservation ethic. All of them have worked diligently to protect these special places. I look forward to working with Senator Merkley, Representative DeFazio, and other colleagues and the bill's other supporters to keep up the fight for these unique places in Oregon and get these pieces of legislation to the President's desk for his signature.

Mr. President, I would like to briefly address the intelligence authorization bill for fiscal year 2011, which has now been reported by the Intelligence Committee. I filed additional views to the committee report accompanying the bill, and my remarks today will include a brief summary of those views.

I have now been a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee for over a decade--Senator Feinstein, Senator Rockefeller and I all began serving on the committee at the beginning of 2001, which I believe makes us the committee's longest-serving current members. In my time on the committee, I have become quite familiar with the intelligence authorization process.

It has now been almost 7 years since an intelligence authorization bill was signed into law during the fiscal year it was intended to cover, and although the 2011 fiscal year is now over halfway over, Congress still has an opportunity to provide useful guidance and direction regarding intelligence spending for this fiscal year. The fiscal year 2011 intelligence authorization bill is the product of substantial labor by both Chairman Feinstein and Vice Chairman Chambliss, as well as their respective staff, and I commend them both for their efforts and for the bipartisan manner in which they have worked to put it together.

Unfortunately, I have very serious concerns about one provision of this bill, and that is why I voted against it during the committee markup last month.

Section 403 of this bill would authorize the Director of National Intelligence, DNI, to establish an administrative process under which the DNI and the heads of the various intelligence agencies would have the authority to take away the pension benefits of an intelligence agency employee, or a former employee, if they ``determine'' that the employee has knowingly violated his or her nondisclosure agreement and disclosed classified information.

I share my colleagues' frustration regarding unauthorized disclosures, or ``leaks,'' of classified information. Leaks are a problem that has plagued intelligence agencies throughout modern history--they can undermine intelligence operations, jeopardize intelligence sources and methods, and have a terrible impact on the lives of covert agents who are publicly exposed. Every Member of Congress, myself included, wants to find new ways to identify and appropriately punish individuals who illegally disclose classified information. I personally spent 4 years working on legislation to increase the criminal penalty for people who are convicted of deliberately exposing covert agents. And I am proud to say that with help from a number of my Republican and Democratic colleagues, this legislation was finally signed into law last year. So I don't take a backseat to anybody when it comes to getting tough on leaks.

I agree that increasing penalties for particular offenses can sometimes have a deterrent effect on those who might otherwise be tempted to leak, so I support the creation of new consequences for individuals who have been convicted of illegally divulging classified information. But when it comes to leakers, the biggest challenge is not determining how to punish them as much as it is identifying who they are.

Given these challenges, my concern is that giving intelligence agency heads the authority to take away the pensions of individuals who haven't been formally convicted of any wrongdoing could pose serious problems for the due process rights of intelligence professionals, and particularly the rights of whistleblowers who report waste, fraud and abuse to Congress or inspectors general.

Section 403--as approved by the Select Committee on Intelligence-- gives intelligence agency heads the power to take pension benefits away from any employee that an agency head ``determines'' has knowingly violated their nondisclosure agreement. But as I pointed out to my colleagues during the committee markup of this bill, neither the DNI nor any of the intelligence agency heads have asked Congress for this authority. Moreover, as of today none of the intelligence agencies have officially told Congress how they would interpret this language.

It is entirely unclear to me what standard agency heads would use to ``determine'' that a particular employee was guilty of disclosing information. It seems clear that section 403 gives agency heads the power to make this determination themselves, without going to a court of law, but the language of the provision provides virtually no guidance about what standard should be used, or even whether this standard could vary from one agency to the next. And no agency

heads have yet told Congress what standard they believe they would be inclined or required to use. This means that if an agency head ``determines'' that a particular individual is responsible for a particular anonymous publication, he or she could conceivably take action to revoke that individual's pension benefits even if the agency does not have enough proof to convict the employee in court.

Section 403 states that agency heads must act ``in a manner consistent with the due process and appeal rights otherwise available to an individual who is subject to the same or similar disciplinary action under other law.'' But federal agencies do not normally take away the pension benefits of former employees unless they are convicted of a crime or begin openly working for a foreign government. I do not believe that this ``otherwise available'' language is intended to require the government to get a criminal conviction, but beyond that I am not at all sure what impact this language is supposed to have and I am not sure that the various intelligence agency heads will know what it means either. This only increases my concern that this provision could be used to undermine or violate the due process rights of intelligence agency employees, with a corresponding impact on their family members and dependents.

I am also especially troubled that section 403 is silent regarding disclosures to Congress and inspectors general. Everyone hopes that intelligence agency managers and supervisors will act honorably and protect whistleblowers who come forward and go through proper channels to report waste, fraud and abuse in national security agencies, but this is unfortunately not always the reality. There are existing laws in place that are intended to protect whistleblowers who provide information to Congress and inspectors general--and I believe that these laws should be strengthened--but section 403 does not specify whether it would supersede these existing statutes or not. I know that none of my colleagues would deliberately do anything to undermine protections for legitimate whistleblowers, but I think it was a mistake for the Intelligence Committee to report this bill without hearing the intelligence agencies' views on whether or not they believe that section 403 would impact existing whistleblower protections.

It is unfortunately entirely plausible to me that a given intelligence agency could conclude that a written submission to the congressional intelligence committees or an agency inspector general is an ``unauthorized publication,'' and that the whistleblower who submitted it is thereby subject to punishment under section 403, especially since there is no explicit language in the bill that contradicts this conclusion. Withholding pension benefits from a legitimate whistleblower would be highly inappropriate, but overzealous and even unscrupulous individuals have served in senior government positions in the past, and will undoubtedly do so again in the future. This is why it is essential to have strong protections for whistleblowers enshrined in law, and this is particularly true for intelligence whistleblowers, since, given the covert nature of intelligence operations and activities, there are limited opportunities for public oversight. But reporting fraud and abuse by one's own colleagues takes courage, and no whistleblowers will come forward if they do not believe that they will be protected from retaliation.

Finally, I am somewhat perplexed by the fact that section 403 creates a special avenue of punishment that only applies to accused leakers who have worked directly for an intelligence agency at some point in their careers. There are literally thousands of employees at the Departments of Defense, State and Justice, as well as the White House, who have access to sensitive information. Some of the most serious leaks of the past few decades have undoubtedly been made by individuals working for these organizations. I do not see an obvious justification for singling out intelligence community employees, particularly in the absence of evidence that these employees are responsible for a disproportionate number of leaks. And I am concerned that it will be harder to attract qualified individuals to work for intelligence agencies if Congress creates the perception that intelligence officers have fewer due process rights than other government employees.

Withholding pension benefits from individuals who are convicted of disclosing classified information will often be an appropriate punishment. This punishment is already established in existing laws, and I would be inclined to support efforts to clarify or strengthen these laws. But I am not inclined to give agency heads broad authority to take away the pensions of individuals who have not been convicted of wrongdoing, particularly when the agency heads themselves have not even told Congress how they would interpret and implement this authority. This is why I voted against this authorization bill. All of my colleagues and I agree that illegal leaks are a serious problem, but this does not mean that anything at all that is done in the name of stopping leaks is necessarily wise policy.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to amend this bill, and I am hopeful that they will be willing to modify or remove section 403 to address the concerns I have raised. In the meantime, I should be clear that it is my intention to object to any request to pass the current version of the bill by unanimous consent.

Mr. President, recently, the president of the University of Oregon, Richard Lariviere, came to meet with me in my office. The University of Oregon is my law school alma mater, and I was commiserating with President Lariviere about the Ducks' narrow loss in the BCS national championship football game. President Lariviere told me about a wonderful speech that Coach Chip Kelly gave to his players after the game. I asked President Lariviere to share the story with me in writing; and with his permission and that of Coach Kelly, I would like now to share that story with my colleagues:

Recollections of President Lariviere:

On January 10, 2011 when the final whistle ended the BCS

national championship football championship game, the

University of Oregon was behind by three points--three points

scored by our friends from Auburn in the final two seconds of

the game.

The UO players made their way to the locker room,

disappointed needless-to-say. Coach Chip Kelly talked to his

players, and his remarks were just what any university

president would want to hear from a head coach, made more

remarkable and emotional because of the magnitude and

unprecedented nature of the moment.

With the team gathered around him, Coach Kelly told these

student athletes that they had played a great game, that he

was proud of them, and that he could not have asked for more.

Then he said this:

``In ten minutes the media will come in here and they're

going to ask you how you feel. They're going to tell you that

this is a defining moment in your lives. I want you to know

that this is not a defining moment in your lives. You are

young men who play football, but football does not define

you. A defining moment will be when you graduate, when you

marry, when you have children. Those are the moments that

define your lives.''

Then Coach Kelly turned to each of the seniors and reminded

them of the promise they made to him that they would

graduate.

In that locker room with a team that accomplished what no

other Oregon football team had ever done, Coach Chip Kelly

represented the very best values that have come to be

associated with the University of Oregon: bold and audacious,

hard working and high achieving, and a focus on what really

matters.

March 2011

Mr. President, this is far from the first time I have spoken in this Chamber about the importance of providing hospice benefits and those workers who help provide them tirelessly every day. Today I'm pleased to introduce legislation to strengthen the hospice program so that these critical benefits will continue to be available for those in the final stages of life.

Hospice care provides humane and comforting support for over 744,000 terminally ill patients and their families each year. These services include pain control, palliative medical care and social, emotional and spiritual services.

Hospice supports the basic human needs for feeling comfortable, in a familiar environment, surrounded by loving caregivers and family during the later stages of life. Hospice care is an effective model for the interaction of interdisciplinary teams of health professionals, family members and volunteers in providing care for those needing care in our communities.

Our country strives to provide exceptional support for the sick, elderly and terminally ill in home and hospice settings. These vulnerable individuals, as well as their family caregivers, are indebted to the many professionals and volunteers who have made it their life's work to serve those in greatest need. Nearly 83,000 hospice professionals, 46,000 hospice volunteers and 1 million home health providers, nationally, contribute significantly to our health care system through their compassion and commitment.

It is because of these professionals and volunteers that seniors continue to have access to this vital service. And it is with these committed people in mind that Senator Roberts and I introduce legislation that will help sustain the future of hospice care.

Specifically, The Hospice Evaluation and Legitimate Payment Act creates a ``do no harm'' demonstration that evaluates proposed payment changes to hospices at 15 different sites before going into effect. With an estimated 66% of hospices looking down a road to negative operating margins by 2019, Congress must act to ensure hospice doors remain open. Testing payment changes can do that.

The HELP Act also allows nurse practitioners and physicians assistants to sign-off on the required face-to-face encounter. This expansion ensures program integrity while also preserving access to services, especially in rural areas where great distances can create unwanted impediments.

Finally, the HELP Act calls for increased accountability. Instead of a hospice submitting a survey every eight years, this legislation implements the recommendation of the OIG, and increases submission to once every 3 years.

We need to support new ways to treat a very ill patient physically and emotionally, long before the last days of life. We need to make sure doctors are not afraid of using pain medications to make people comfortable and, most of all, we need to make sure people start the conversations with their families and doctors about having a better death and using hospice as early as possible. None of these options for changing the standards of end-of-life care delivery can occur if hospices cannot continue to operate. The HELP Act makes that more possible.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, this is far from the first time I have spoken in this Chamber about the importance of providing hospice benefits and those workers who help provide them tirelessly every day. Today I'm pleased to introduce legislation to strengthen the hospice program so that these critical benefits will continue to be available for those in the final stages of life.

Hospice care provides humane and comforting support for over 744,000 terminally ill patients and their families each year. These services include pain control, palliative medical care and social, emotional and spiritual services.

Hospice supports the basic human needs for feeling comfortable, in a familiar environment, surrounded by loving caregivers and family during the later stages of life. Hospice care is an effective model for the interaction of interdisciplinary teams of health professionals, family members and volunteers in providing care for those needing care in our communities.

Our country strives to provide exceptional support for the sick, elderly and terminally ill in home and hospice settings. These vulnerable individuals, as well as their family caregivers, are indebted to the many professionals and volunteers who have made it their life's work to serve those in greatest need. Nearly 83,000 hospice professionals, 46,000 hospice volunteers and 1 million home health providers, nationally, contribute significantly to our health care system through their compassion and commitment.

It is because of these professionals and volunteers that seniors continue to have access to this vital service. And it is with these committed people in mind that Senator Roberts and I introduce legislation that will help sustain the future of hospice care.

Specifically, The Hospice Evaluation and Legitimate Payment Act creates a ``do no harm'' demonstration that evaluates proposed payment changes to hospices at 15 different sites before going into effect. With an estimated 66% of hospices looking down a road to negative operating margins by 2019, Congress must act to ensure hospice doors remain open. Testing payment changes can do that.

The HELP Act also allows nurse practitioners and physicians assistants to sign-off on the required face-to-face encounter. This expansion ensures program integrity while also preserving access to services, especially in rural areas where great distances can create unwanted impediments.

Finally, the HELP Act calls for increased accountability. Instead of a hospice submitting a survey every eight years, this legislation implements the recommendation of the OIG, and increases submission to once every 3 years.

We need to support new ways to treat a very ill patient physically and emotionally, long before the last days of life. We need to make sure doctors are not afraid of using pain medications to make people comfortable and, most of all, we need to make sure people start the conversations with their families and doctors about having a better death and using hospice as early as possible. None of these options for changing the standards of end-of-life care delivery can occur if hospices cannot continue to operate. The HELP Act makes that more possible.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the U.S. Outdoor Act. In the Pacific Northwest, spending time in the great outdoors is a part of life. Our magnificent mountains, our clear rivers and streams, and our majestic forests provide for a quality of life that is, in my view, unparalleled. Unfortunately, the outerwear that enables us to enjoy these wonderful treasures is more expensive than it needs to be. This is because under current law, the United States imposes steep tariffs on outdoor performance outerwear like jackets and pants used for skiing and snowboarding, mountaineering, hunting, fishing and dozens of other outdoor activities.

These high tariffs--and let us call them what they are, taxes--were originally implemented to promote an import substitution policy. They were imposed to discourage American consumers from buying outerwear that was manufactured overseas, even if those were superior products. Today, there is no domestic outerwear industry to really protect with these tariffs, yet consumers are still paying through the teeth for products like snow pants and rain jackets. These tariffs are hammering the pocketbooks of millions of American consumers, and they harm the businesses that are engaged in promoting enjoyment of the great outdoors.

But we can fix this in a way that helps American producers better compete globally in an environmentally sustainable manner, and relieves consumers of artificially high costs. But it is more than just reducing costs and promoting innovation.

To me, the Outdoor Act is also about encouraging our kids and members of our community to get outside, to be active, and to appreciate and protect our natural treasures. I want to associate myself with the efforts of the First Lady, Michelle Obama, who is leading an important initiative to get people--especially kids--moving and eating healthier. I see the Outdoor Act, which makes getting outside to hike, bike, or fish more affordable as complementary of the First Lady's efforts.

I am proud that this legislation enjoys support from both sides of the political aisle and especially pleased that my friend, Senator Crapo from Idaho, is helping to lead the charge with this initiative. Furthermore, I am happy that this legislation is supported by domestic textile and apparel companies as well as the performance outerwear designers and retailers. This all makes sense given that it will spur outdoor recreation and consumption of goods to support these activities. The outdoor recreation industry accounts for $730 billion dollars and 65 million jobs across the United States, with 73,000 jobs in Oregon. With this bill, we can potentially create even more jobs by increasing the purchasing power of consumers of outdoor goods, by saving them money on unnecessary tariffs.

The U.S. OUTDOOR Act eliminates the import duty for qualifying recreational performance outerwear, bringing duties that can be as high as 28 percent down to zero. It also establishes the Sustainable Textile and Apparel Research, STAR, fund, which invests in U.S. technologies and jobs that focus on sustainable, environmentally conscious manufacturing, helping textile and apparel companies work towards minimizing their energy and

water use, reducing waste and their carbon footprint, and incorporating efficiencies that help them better compete globally. I urge my colleagues to take a look at this legislation and to work with me to move it toward becoming law.