Floor Statements

Mr. President, Senators, let me thank all of you for your many kindnesses over the last 48 hours. When news about your prostate is ricocheting around the blogosphere, all the calls, notes, and even offers to object on my behalf have meant a lot. I only want to say that I just hope this encourages everybody to go out and get those physicals. What this is all about is prevention. We can agree that when it comes to health care that we all ought to focus on prevention.

Mr. President, briefly, it was so important for me to be here today because don't ask, don't tell is wrong. I don't care who you love. If you love this country enough to risk your life for it, you should not have to hide who you are. You ought to be able to serve.

The history of our wonderful Nation is spotted with wrongs, but this institution is at its best when it corrects those. That is the opportunity we will have today.

Don't ask, don't tell has resulted in the discharge of over 14,000 patriotic and talented service members who were otherwise qualified to serve their country.

A 2005 Government Accountability Office report says nearly 10 percent of those discharged under don't ask, don't tell have been linguists trained in critical languages such as Arabic, Farsi, and Chinese.

As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, let me tell you

that turning away Arabic, Farsi, and Chinese speakers is bad for national security. It makes it harder for us to win the war on terror. Don't just take my word for it. The fact is, the military now understands how important it is to make this change.

Today, the Senate has the opportunity to be on the right side of history. Don't ask, don't tell is a wrong that should never have been perpetrated. Let's move to end it today. Again, let me say thank you to all of you. I look forward to being with all of you next year.

I yield the floor.

I thank the Senator.

Mr. President, I wish to commend Senator Warner and Senator Chambliss in particular for their important work, and tomorrow it will be even more important given that this agreement will pass tonight.

There is always another election around the corner, a big array of special interest groups that need to be satisfied, and the constant scream of public opinion polls that politicians live and die for. Why take action that could offend a group today if you can put it off for a while?

In my view, the agreement that will pass tonight is a victory for the politics of procrastination. At a time when Americans are swimming in debt, more water will be put into the pool. Instead of taking steps to fix the market-distorting, job-killing Tax Code--last overhauled a quarter of a century ago when China and India were blips in the global economy--this vote, tonight, will prop up our broken Tax Code. Millions of Americans are out of work, small businesses are closing their doors, and instead of finding permanent solutions to the problem, the agreement is smiling like Scarlett O'Hara and saying: Fiddle-dee-dee, I will think about it tomorrow.

The agreement doesn't come close to what is needed to get our economy back on track. In many ways, this deal will make the problems worse. For one, it adds more to the deficit than TARP, more than the 2009 stimulus bill--858 billion more dollars will be added to the national debt.

At a time when our economy desperately needs to create more jobs, the agreement continues the same tax policies that failed to create jobs for the past 10 years.

At a time when businesses are saying that uncertainty is keeping them from hiring and investing, this deal increases that uncertainty by essentially turning the entire personal income tax system into a temporary structure that will all expire in a year or two.

And at a time when China is planning to invest a trillion dollars in crucial industries for its long-term growth, there is nothing in this agreement that makes so much as a downpayment for investing in our Nation's future.

It did not have to be this way. As Senator Warner and colleagues have mentioned, there was a blueprint provided by the deficit commission. I don't happen to agree with everything in it, but clearly it was a very important blueprint.

In the 1980s--and I see Senator Alexander here, who clearly remembers those days--President Reagan and the Democrats worked for bipartisan tax reform to clean out the loopholes, hold down the rates, and keep progressivity. In the 2 years, colleagues, after Democrats and Ronald Reagan worked together, our economy grew by 6.3 million jobs--twice the number created between 2001 and 2008 when tax policy was purely partisan.

I don't think it had to be this way. Senator Warner and Senator Chambliss tried very hard to add a provision that might at some point insert consequences for inaction. Colleagues--and I will close with this--nothing will happen in this town where there is this culture of procrastination unless there are some consequences for inaction.

There are provisions in this measure tonight that I support very strongly--unemployment insurance, help for the middle class and small business. I was willing to extend the whole Bush-era program for a year if it were done in a way to force action. But that is not going to be done.

Tonight, I intend to vote no. Tomorrow, I will be back with Senator Warner and Senator Chambliss to build on the good work of the deficit commission, build on the good work Democrats and Ronald Reagan did in the 1980s to give us a model so that finally in this country we tackle the major problems--debt reduction and fixing the job-killing Tax Code--and bring back the middle class to the prosperity they deserve.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today, I am pleased to reintroduce the Medicare Enhancements for Needed Drugs Act, the MEND Act, with my colleague, Senator Olympia Snowe. One of the most important promises of the original Medicare Part D debate, and from the more recent health reform debate, is to drive cost containment in the field of prescription drugs. Allowing Medicare to negotiate for drug prices would be a groundbreaking cost containment measure for a senior who might otherwise be bankrupted by their prescription drug costs. The legislation introduced today clearly prohibits price setting or the creation of a uniform formulary. It simply allows the Medicare program to be a smart shopper by allowing Medicare to go into the market and use its clout just like any other big purchaser.

Certainly, there is a significant group of special interests in this town that do not want the Federal Government to be a smart shopper. The number of lobbyists that have worked against this legislation over the years has been just staggering. For example, the Center for Responsive Politics estimated that last year the pharmaceutical industry spent over $250 million for lobbying to squash initiatives such as this. And make no mistake about what the special interests who oppose this legislation want to do. They would rather soak senior citizens and the taxpayers and add to the budget deficit than to have to negotiate with the Federal Government.

According to CMS actuaries, the Medicare Part D drug benefit is already funded with over $50 billion a year in taxpayer dollars and will cost the country substantially more in the future. To be good stewards of taxpayer dollars, to be able to strengthen the program and to help seniors truly save, Congress must look toward using every logical tool to lower costs. The Congressional Budget Office has indicated that the type of targeted approach to negotiating drug pricing in the MEND Act could potentially generate cost savings for the Medicare program and for beneficiaries. It would be irresponsible for the Congress not to try and potentially achieve savings for a program that so many Americans rely on.

The legislation that Senator Snowe and I put forward today is a commonsense proposal. Having the Secretary negotiate for more competitive drug pricing is an idea that has broad public support. An AARP poll reported that 87 percent of United States adult residents support government negotiation of prescription drug prices for the Medicare benefit. Young, old, rich, poor, Democrat, Republican--our citizens strongly support this approach and probably wonder why it has taken so long to implement it.

Under the MEND Act, the Secretary could negotiate in any circumstance, but must negotiate in several instances: for single source drugs for which there is no therapeutic equivalent; drugs for which taxpayer funding was substantial in its research and development; and for any fallback prescription plan that Medicare must provide. In addition, this legislation requires the Secretary to provide a fallback plan if there is not comprehensive coverage, including coverage for the so-called ``doughnut hole'', available in a region.

I have always believed that negotiating is not a one-size-fits-all proposition. That is why my good friend, Senator Snowe, and I have repeatedly proposed language that includes no uniform formulary. This legislation emphasizes the concept of ``bargaining power''--not price controls, not rules set in Washington, DC, not a one-size-fits-all approach, nothing that would discourage innovation among pharmaceutical companies, but simply ``bargaining power.''

All Americans are affected by prescription drug costs. Particularly hard hit are older people, particularly low-income older people, and people with large prescription drug bills. AARP publishes an annual Rx Watchdog report. They note that for the nearly 200 brand-name medications most commonly used by older people, the costs of those medicines had gone up by 9.7 percent over a recent 12-month period, even though the general inflation rate was below 1 percent. This situation is unreasonable and unsustainable, and it is hurting our most vulnerable citizens. As noted by AARP, seniors are affected more than any other segment of the U.S. population by prescription drug cost. Every dollar we can save for a senior citizen is also a dollar saved for the taxpayers, and when you are talking about nearly 30 million seniors enrolled in Part D coverage, that starts to add up to real money for the Medicare program.

If we can save even a little bit we owe it to seniors to do just that. There are seniors who have to pay thousands of dollars for a cancer drug when there are no other options for treatment. Interestingly, some of these life-saving drugs have been developed with our tax dollars, through research sponsored by Federal agencies such as the NIH. Whenever I am in Oregon at a town hall meeting, I am always asked, ``How many times do we have to pay for drugs? Our tax dollars go toward research and development, and then taxpayers have to pay again when the drug is patented and put on the open market.'' In cases where substantial Federal research dollars went into creating the drug, I believe the Secretary ought to step in and see what kind of a better deal can be garnered on behalf of seniors.

I would like to acknowledge Senator Snowe's efforts on behalf of our Medicare beneficiaries and taxpayers. She and I have worked on this particular issue for a number of years. This bipartisan proposal is an effort to follow up on the promise she and I made to our citizens back home to improve the Part D drug benefit. I thank Senator Snowe, who is always trying to find common,

bipartisan ground, which is, of course, the only way you get important work done in the Senate. This legislation certainly qualifies as important work. I urge my colleagues to join with us in supporting this bipartisan legislation to contain prescription drug costs for our Nation's seniors.

Mr. President, today, I am pleased to reintroduce the Medicare Enhancements for Needed Drugs Act, the MEND Act, with my colleague, Senator Olympia Snowe. One of the most important promises of the original Medicare Part D debate, and from the more recent health reform debate, is to drive cost containment in the field of prescription drugs. Allowing Medicare to negotiate for drug prices would be a groundbreaking cost containment measure for a senior who might otherwise be bankrupted by their prescription drug costs. The legislation introduced today clearly prohibits price setting or the creation of a uniform formulary. It simply allows the Medicare program to be a smart shopper by allowing Medicare to go into the market and use its clout just like any other big purchaser.

Certainly, there is a significant group of special interests in this town that do not want the Federal Government to be a smart shopper. The number of lobbyists that have worked against this legislation over the years has been just staggering. For example, the Center for Responsive Politics estimated that last year the pharmaceutical industry spent over $250 million for lobbying to squash initiatives such as this. And make no mistake about what the special interests who oppose this legislation want to do. They would rather soak senior citizens and the taxpayers and add to the budget deficit than to have to negotiate with the Federal Government.

According to CMS actuaries, the Medicare Part D drug benefit is already funded with over $50 billion a year in taxpayer dollars and will cost the country substantially more in the future. To be good stewards of taxpayer dollars, to be able to strengthen the program and to help seniors truly save, Congress must look toward using every logical tool to lower costs. The Congressional Budget Office has indicated that the type of targeted approach to negotiating drug pricing in the MEND Act could potentially generate cost savings for the Medicare program and for beneficiaries. It would be irresponsible for the Congress not to try and potentially achieve savings for a program that so many Americans rely on.

The legislation that Senator Snowe and I put forward today is a commonsense proposal. Having the Secretary negotiate for more competitive drug pricing is an idea that has broad public support. An AARP poll reported that 87 percent of United States adult residents support government negotiation of prescription drug prices for the Medicare benefit. Young, old, rich, poor, Democrat, Republican--our citizens strongly support this approach and probably wonder why it has taken so long to implement it.

Under the MEND Act, the Secretary could negotiate in any circumstance, but must negotiate in several instances: for single source drugs for which there is no therapeutic equivalent; drugs for which taxpayer funding was substantial in its research and development; and for any fallback prescription plan that Medicare must provide. In addition, this legislation requires the Secretary to provide a fallback plan if there is not comprehensive coverage, including coverage for the so-called ``doughnut hole'', available in a region.

I have always believed that negotiating is not a one-size-fits-all proposition. That is why my good friend, Senator Snowe, and I have repeatedly proposed language that includes no uniform formulary. This legislation emphasizes the concept of ``bargaining power''--not price controls, not rules set in Washington, DC, not a one-size-fits-all approach, nothing that would discourage innovation among pharmaceutical companies, but simply ``bargaining power.''

All Americans are affected by prescription drug costs. Particularly hard hit are older people, particularly low-income older people, and people with large prescription drug bills. AARP publishes an annual Rx Watchdog report. They note that for the nearly 200 brand-name medications most commonly used by older people, the costs of those medicines had gone up by 9.7 percent over a recent 12-month period, even though the general inflation rate was below 1 percent. This situation is unreasonable and unsustainable, and it is hurting our most vulnerable citizens. As noted by AARP, seniors are affected more than any other segment of the U.S. population by prescription drug cost. Every dollar we can save for a senior citizen is also a dollar saved for the taxpayers, and when you are talking about nearly 30 million seniors enrolled in Part D coverage, that starts to add up to real money for the Medicare program.

If we can save even a little bit we owe it to seniors to do just that. There are seniors who have to pay thousands of dollars for a cancer drug when there are no other options for treatment. Interestingly, some of these life-saving drugs have been developed with our tax dollars, through research sponsored by Federal agencies such as the NIH. Whenever I am in Oregon at a town hall meeting, I am always asked, ``How many times do we have to pay for drugs? Our tax dollars go toward research and development, and then taxpayers have to pay again when the drug is patented and put on the open market.'' In cases where substantial Federal research dollars went into creating the drug, I believe the Secretary ought to step in and see what kind of a better deal can be garnered on behalf of seniors.

I would like to acknowledge Senator Snowe's efforts on behalf of our Medicare beneficiaries and taxpayers. She and I have worked on this particular issue for a number of years. This bipartisan proposal is an effort to follow up on the promise she and I made to our citizens back home to improve the Part D drug benefit. I thank Senator Snowe, who is always trying to find common,

bipartisan ground, which is, of course, the only way you get important work done in the Senate. This legislation certainly qualifies as important work. I urge my colleagues to join with us in supporting this bipartisan legislation to contain prescription drug costs for our Nation's seniors.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Commerce Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 5591, and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and any statements related to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Commerce Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 841, and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a Kerry substitute amendment, which is at the desk, be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and any statements related to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 677, S. 1275.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee- reported substitute amendment be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and any statements related to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 699 submitted earlier today.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and any statements related to the resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 581, S. 2925.

I thank the Senator from Oklahoma for his constructive work in helping to craft an agreement to pass S. 2925. As he notes, sex trafficking is modern day slavery. It is a morally reprehensible epidemic that ensnares far too many children, and there is far too little awareness of the scope of this criminal enterprise in the United States. I also agree that in combating this heinous crime, and providing law enforcement agencies and services providers with effective tools, Congress must take care to do so in a manner that is fiscally responsible and that avoids inefficiency and duplication.

I agree with the Senator from Oklahoma that an important role of Congress is to provide oversight to help make Federal programs more effective, to increase efficiency, and to reduce duplication, waste, and unnecessary expenditures. I have discussed with the Senator from Oklahoma his work on the deficit commission, and as he knows, I serve on the Senate Budget Committee and I am very concerned about controlling government spending and working to ensure the most efficient and effective use of government resources. The level of debt that our nation has accumulated is very concerning and is a threat to economic growth and sound fiscal policy. In accordance with these concerns, I agree with the Senator from Oklahoma that when the TVPRA reauthorization occurs, the Senate should carefully consider all programs to combat human trafficking, including S. 2925, to determine which programs provide the most effective impact, and whether there is duplication, inefficiency, or waste that can and should be reduced.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee substitute amendment be considered; that the two Wyden amendments which are at the desk be agreed to en bloc; that the committee substitute, as amended, be agreed to; the bill, as amended, be read a third time, and that a budgetary pay-go statement be read.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be passed, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and any statements related to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, with the passage of S. 2925, the Senate is sending to the House the first ever all-out battle plan to defeat one of the fastest growing criminal enterprises in our country; that is, trafficking children for sex.

Senator Cornyn and I have worked together on this issue for many months on a bipartisan basis with tremendous help from Chairman Leahy, from Senator Sessions, from Senator Durbin, and Senator Kyl, and before I begin my statement tonight, I wish to express my thanks to them. This is a textbook for how the Senate ought to work together on an important issue in a bipartisan way, and I am very grateful to my colleagues for their leadership.

When I first approached Senator Cornyn, he said in our very first conversation: This has nothing to do with Democrats and Republicans; this is about doing what is right for young people. So I am very grateful to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for the support they have shown on this matter.

Each year, an estimated 100,000 children in America are trafficked for sex. They are recruited by violent criminals, and their average age is between 12 and 14. The fact is, sex trafficking in children is modern day slavery, pure and simple.

Tragically, my home State of Oregon has become a hub for those who would exploit women and young girls, and the tragedy is my State is not alone. What we have seen--and this was brought out in hearings--is that the reason this is such a fast-growing crime is it is so easy to perpetrate and there is such big money involved.

For example, experts in the field said for some time, you would see gangs zero in on drugs. The fact is, trafficking in children, according to many of the experts, is easier than trafficking in drugs, and today, with the Internet and the anonymity that the Internet provides these dangerous criminals who traffic in children, it is, as I say, one of the fastest growing crimes in American life.

I got a sense of what this was all about this summer when I had a chance to go out with Portland police officers in my hometown on 82nd Avenue. What I saw is something I will never forget: a heart-wrenching example of why this bipartisan legislation is so important. I saw a 15- year-old girl essentially out there with the tools of the trade. She had a cell phone so she could be in constant contact with her pimp, and all night long they were getting messages: Made $80, made $100 on a customer here or somewhere else. So she had her cell phone. She had a butcher knife because she knew she needed a butcher knife to protect herself, and she had a purse full of condoms, because she knew she was going to have a bunch more customers during the course of the evening. So what you have--and this is not primarily about statistics. If one young woman, whether it is in the State of West Virginia or Oregon or anywhere else, is prostituted this way, trafficked this way, that is one young woman too many.

What the Senate has done now with the passage of S. 2925 is draw a line in the sand and say, for the first time, that we are going to put in place a comprehensive strategy, bring together the law enforcement people and the human services people to deal with this in a way that is going to allow us to send a message on the streets of this country--and particularly the interstate highways which have become such a magnet for sex trafficking--that the odds are going to be different; that this time those who traffic in young women are going to face real prospects of a deterrent.

The reality is these young women don't end up working as prostitutes by accident. The growing army of pimps I mentioned--violent, ruthless criminals--see this group as an ideal group of young people to prey on. The fact is, a pimp can make $200,000 a year trafficking just one victim. Of course, many of those pimps traffic multiple victims on any particular occasion. Once a young girl is under the control of a pimp, it is very difficult for that youngster to escape. The pimps use violence to control girls, as well as traumatize them. They move the girls constantly from city to city, keeping them isolated from any source of support and preventing them from developing any kind of other more healthy relationships.

In talking to law enforcement officials, I learned that removing sex trafficking victims from the control of a pimp is very difficult. It is one that requires training, resources, and in effect a strategy, bringing together law enforcement people and social services people in order to break this degrading and often deadly spiral of sex trafficking in youngsters.

There are a variety of needs these young people have. One that Senator Cornyn and I learned about in the course of our work is the need for dedicated shelter for these youngsters who have been trafficked. Without shelter, for example, there is no place to keep trafficking victims safe from the pimps and to give them the counseling and services they need. If there is no safe place for the victims to stay, there is no way the law enforcement authorities can build a case against the pimp. So this is a perfect example of how the important work being done by our social service providers, in terms of the work in the shelters, is absolutely a prerequisite to tough, aggressive prosecution of the pimps because if you don't have a safe place for the young women, there is no place for them to get the health care and services and counseling they need.

In fact, the night when I was out in Portland and saw, in particular, that 15-year-old with what I call the tools of the trade, when the police picked her up--and Portland's professionals in the sex trafficking field are extraordinarily talented. I saw that firsthand, and officials from around the country tell me the same thing. One of the big questions they were faced with was, where would they send the young women they found that evening for the next couple of days in order to just work out a more permanent living arrangement? In Portland, we have been able to do it. But even in our city, which is now mobilizing all through the community, it has been very difficult.

At present, there are only about 70 shelter beds for sex trafficking victims in the whole country. So that is why I mentioned that pimps know their chances of getting prosecuted for forcing girls to engage in prostitution are very low. We have some laws on the books, but we also need a strategy bringing together shelters, training for law enforcement officials and other resources if we are going to have the strongest possible battle plan against sex trafficking.

Senator Cornyn and I got together to introduce this legislation. We would set up what amounts to model projects across the country to test out the best approaches for combating sex trafficking of children. We do make clear these approaches have to bring together law enforcement people and social services.

It makes me very proud. The Chair, having served as Governor of West Virginia, knows from time to time you see some debates between law enforcement people and social services folks. Law enforcement people believe prosecution is the way to go. The social services folks believe their model is more effective.

What Senator Cornyn and I found is that this is an area where the law enforcement people support the social services folks and vice versa because they know both elements--social services and law enforcement-- are going to be necessary to fight this scourge.

I mentioned shelters. There would also be block grants available for mental and physical health care, treatment for substance abuse and sexual abuse, and also assistance with trauma care. There would be help for the victims

with food, clothing, and other necessities; and together it means the youngsters--primarily young women--who are going to be in these shelters will know from the time they get to the shelter that caring individuals want them to have a different life.

That is what drew me to this legislation. When you are talking about preying on young people, every Member of the Senate is concerned. What I think galvanized my attention was that a lot of these young women don't think anybody cares about them except their pimp. They have gotten to the point in life where they believe there isn't anybody in their corner.

Their pimp says: You know, sweetheart, I care about you. You are what's really important to me. Let's just make some money, and eventually you will be out on your own.

What you have with these shelters, and also the law enforcement people I saw in Portland, is young women saying for the first time that there is an adult, a role model, who wants them to have a different life, who wants them to have the prospect of a different future, where they are not degrading themselves, where they are not victimized, where they have a different set of possibilities for their lives.

The human services aspects of this legislation are extremely important, and they complement the help that law enforcement would get as well. I was particularly struck, as we got into the law enforcement aspect of this fight against sex trafficking, that there, again, had been some model approaches. The law enforcement official I was particularly impressed with was the Dallas, TX, police sergeant Byron Fassett. He explained to me that without the right training, law enforcement officers would not know how to spot the signs of sex trafficking and would not know how to handle the victims.

So Senator Cornyn and I thought, with the counsel of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle, it would be important to provide specialized training for police officers and prosecutors to help them understand how to handle sex trafficking cases. The fact is, Sergeant Fassett of Dallas, TX, can only be at one place at a time.

What this legislation is going to do is make it possible for other leaders in the law enforcement field to get the training out across the country, the state-of-the-art approaches about how to best fight the violent criminals who engaged in this activity, and I am very pleased that we were able to make possible part of the grant in this legislation assistance for the law enforcement community.

Finally, the bill would address another issue that is a major component of sex trafficking, and that is runaway children. One-third of runaway children are lured into prostitution within 48 hours of leaving their home. The evidence also shows that the children who have run away multiple times are at the greatest risk of being drawn into sex trafficking.

So what we are doing in this legislation is making it possible for law enforcement officials to, in effect, make priority the children at greatest risk; that is, these runaways. I am very pleased we were able to work out a bipartisan agreement for our approach in this area.

It would be hard to give appropriate thanks to all who participated in this effort--certainly, to do it without keeping you here until breakfast time. Let me name just a small number of the many groups and individuals who provided extremely valuable insight: the Polaris Project, Shared Hope International, National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, the FBI's Innocence Lost Project, and ECPAT-USA. I could go on with the list of many groups.

Mr. President, I will tell you I am especially grateful to the faith community for all of their efforts. Throughout this debate, Senator Cornyn and I have been contacted by religious leaders from all over the country, from all particular denominations, talking about how important this legislation is to them; and what they conveyed to us is that this is what they see in their congregations. This is what parents go to bed at night worrying about--the prospect of seeing one of their youngsters caught up in this vicious cycle of degradation, crime, and lost hope for the future.

We could not be here tonight if it wasn't for the faith community that, all across the country, contacted their Senators, contacted various civic groups, and made common cause with rallies and marches and petitions. This is what has made this night possible.

So I have tried to make sure the Senate knows that a whole host of colleagues on both sides of the aisle have worked on this. I will say my older daughter said the other night: Dad, I have figured it out. You are in the only profession on Earth where somebody your age is considered one of the young guys. I thought about that, because I have had the honor of serving in the Senate for some time--recently was reelected--and I can't recall a time when I felt prouder of the Senate coming together to deal with something that would make a real difference.

This one piece of legislation is not going to wipe out this reprehensible, heinous crime, where youngsters who are 12 and 13 and 14 are trafficked for sex. But with this legislation, from Portland, OR, to Portland, ME--and, frankly, this will have benefits internationally because a lot of these youngsters are also trafficked for sex far from the shores of the United States--tonight the Senate is making a difference. Tonight, the Senate is giving hope to parents who are concerned about their kids' future. For young women who are literally going to be hiding tonight near some of these interstates--Interstate 5, which goes all through the West--with the passage of this legislation and, hopefully, quick action by the House, this is a chance to make a difference for these young people.

This is what public service is supposed to be all about--making a difference for young people and families and doing it not on the basis of Democrats and Republicans but on the basis of what is right, what is moral, what is just. There are a lot of people who deserve credit here tonight, especially my friend and colleague, Senator Cornyn, but I am very hopeful the House will act on this legislation. I am going to put additional remarks into the Record, but Joel Shapiro, of my office, did yeoman's work on this legislation and deserves considerable credit tonight. I will leave my additional remarks for the Congressional Record, but tonight, through the good-faith efforts of lots of community and faith leaders, there is an opportunity to help reduce one of the fastest growing criminal enterprises in our country--certainly one of the most immoral--the trafficking of young people for sex.

With that, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, before she leaves the floor, let me say to the Senator from Maine that I very much appreciate her thoughtful views. She continually talks about the desire to get folks to come together. I think there are a variety of ways to do it. That is essentially what I was going to outline this afternoon. I just want to assure my good friend from Maine that I am very much looking forward to working with her on this issue and thank her again for her kind remarks.

Madam President and colleagues, I think we have a choice.

We can continue to have this debate at the margins about how to extend a thoroughly discredited, insanely complicated, job-killing system that we have today or we can find a way, as Democrats and President Reagan did back in the 1980s, to come together and put in place a reform system that will create, in my view, millions of good- paying, new jobs, the way Democrats and Republicans in the 1980s came together and created more than 16 million new jobs.

To pick up on this discussion, I think there is a message for Democrats and Republicans together on this issue.

This question of extending the 2001 and 2003 tax legislation has almost become a tax version of ``The Emperor Has No Clothes.'' We all know this story and have read it to our kids. It's about two swindlers spinning a tall tail about magical, invisible cloth. The emperor and his ministers and all of his subjects get so caught up in the story of the magical and invisible cloth that it takes a child to point out what everybody should have seen was obvious: The emperor has no clothes.

The fact is, when we look at extending the 2001-2003 tax laws, what we will see at the end of the day is from the standpoint of creating good-paying jobs and the opportunity to grow the economy, the emperor really doesn't have any clothes. The numbers don't add up.

When tax policy was partisan between 2001 and 2008, there was only 2.3 percent payroll expansion, 3 million new jobs, and real median income fell by 5 percent. Yet that is what we are hearing on the floor of the Senate ought to be extended.

I say to my good friend from Pennsylvania, his State, as has mine, has been pounded by this economy. How can we explain to our constituents that we are extending a policy that based on the facts, not on political rhetoric, produced such anemic payroll expansion, such a modest number of new jobs, and a loss of real median income. I don't think we can explain it to folks in Pennsylvania and Oregon.

What I do think we can explain that gets us away from this ``Emperor Has No Clothes'' situation is what happened in the 1980s when a big group of Democrats and Republicans came together and changed the discussion about taxes. Instead of Democrats and Republicans beating up on each other, it became the people against the special interests and, in effect, leading Democrats such as Dick Gephardt and Dan Rostenkowski and others joined with the President to point out the inequities. And we had Democrats then talking about the desire to make sure companies-- companies that hire people at good wages--would be in a position to benefit because they would be paying rates that would be competitive in tough global markets.

There are opportunities--because I have been talking to folks in labor and folks in business--to do this. Why don't we take away the tax breaks for shipping jobs overseas and use that money to lower rates for folks who manufacture in the United States, who create good-paying jobs in hard-hit parts of Pennsylvania and Oregon. I would like to see our companies have a new incentive for green manufacturing which many of the companies in Oregon want to do. To do it, why not take away some of those tax breaks you get from what is called tax deferral and foreign tax credits and use that money to create more employment at home? We are not going to be able to do that if we just reup for this discredited, broken, insanely complicated tax system.

Now, I have said to colleagues--and Senator Casey and a number of us have talked about it--that if it takes some very short-term extension of current law in order to make sure we don't hurt middle-class people and we don't hamper economic growth, I would be willing to look at it. I would be willing to look at that if we use the opportunity to then aggressively pursue bipartisan tax reform; tax reform, for example, that would do something about a Tax Code that nobody likes.

This isn't like the health care issue. I think the Presiding Officer and my friend from Pennsylvania understand that part of what happened in the health care issue is a lot of folks said: I want to fix health care, I want to contain costs, but I sort of like the health care I have. There isn't anybody on the planet I can find who makes an argument that they like the current Tax Code.

We spend 7.6 billion hours a year to comply with tax law. It costs us almost $200 billion to comply with our tax laws annually. That is the equivalent of 3.8 million people working full-time just to comply with the Tax Code. At one point in the tax reform discussions, after I got on the Finance Committee, I brought just a portion of the books that contain the provisions of the Tax Code. And there are thousands of pages. In fact, we add thousands of pages every few years. I am 6 feet 4 inches and just a portion of the books are taller than me. The complexity of the code increases exponentially, as Nina Olson, who is the Taxpayer Advocate at the Internal Revenue Service, has pointed out.

So I offer this up--and I know my colleague is waiting to speak--only to say if we are asking the country to choose--and that is why I use this ``Emperor Has No Clothes'' analogy--between something we know hasn't worked--I would note, for example, that the Wall Street Journal, not exactly hostile to conservatives, pointed out that George W. Bush had ``the worst track record on record for job creation.''

How do you make the case to the American people, whether you are in Pennsylvania or Oregon or anywhere else, that you want to anchor them to the same discredited tax system that has failed to create jobs for the entire period in which it was in effect?

So I hope as we get into this debate we look at the fact that perhaps we are having the wrong conversation. Perhaps we are having the wrong conversation in just debating extending the 2001-2003 tax provisions-- maybe we will extend them for some people and we will not extend them for other people. What we ought to be saying is, look at history. Look at what happened in the 1980s when Democrats and Republicans came together. In fact, back then there was almost a mirror image of what we have now.

Back in the 1980s we had a Republican President and a Republican Senate, and Democrats in the House. So we have today almost a mirror image of that, and we know when they got together in the 1980s that it created millions of new jobs, millions of good-paying jobs. I think we can do that again.

I want to spend 2011 working with my colleagues--the Senator from Pennsylvania, the Senator from New Hampshire, and Senator Collins, who gave a very eloquent statement on the advantages of real tax reform--I want to spend the next year working with colleagues on something that shows vastly more promise for creating more

good-paying jobs and economic opportunity than these choices we are talking about on the floor of the Senate that, in my view, literally yoke us to a system that we know is not going to produce jobs.

It would be one thing if the debate was in question; that maybe the numbers from the 1980s were a little ambiguous, and when tax policy was partisan between 2001 and 2008 the numbers were more encouraging. That is not the picture. The picture is crystal clear. When we went at tax reform in a bipartisan way in the 1980s with a Democratic effort in the Congress and a Republican President, big win: 16 million new jobs. When we got partisan with taxes in 2001 and 2008, we just went downhill to truly anemic economic growth. The country deserves better.

I would finally say I think this is exactly the kind of bipartisan work that the country was calling for at this last election. Why not give it to them rather than serve up yet more that is seen as polarizing and divisive when our country is undergoing such economic anguish.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleagues from Idaho and Oregon, Senator James Risch, Senator Mike Crapo, and Senator Jeff Merkley, in introducing the Geothermal Production Expansion Act of 2010. This legislation will amend an already existing law--the Geothermal Steam Act--governing the way the Federal Government leases public lands for the development of geothermal energy projects.

Geothermal energy facilities provide a continuous supply of renewable energy with very few environmental impacts. Although the United States has more geothermal capacity than any other country, this potential has been barely tapped. This shortfall is partly due to the high initial cost and risk involved in locating and developing geothermal resources. Like oil and natural gas exploration, until exploration and production wells are actually drilled, the true energy value of the site is not known nor is the full extent of the underground reservoir or energy source.

This legislation is intended to expand the future production of geothermal energy on federally-owned lands by taking some of the uncertainty and guess work out of the leasing and development process by allowing the Interior Department to issue geothermal leases for adjacent lands on a non-competitive basis, based on fair-market value. This would allow a geothermal developer to expand a successful geothermal lease without being forced into a bidding war with speculators or uncooperative competitors who might threaten project expansion or even prevent the project from reaching commercial scale.

Under current law, the Department of Interior is charged with issuing geothermal energy leases through a competitive lease sale. There are, however, several situations where the Department is allowed to issue non-competitive leases, for example, if there were no competitive bids offered, or where there is an already existing mining claim, or where the geothermal energy will be used directly on site for heating or other uses and not sold as electricity. This legislation would add an additional category of non-competitive leases for lands that are immediately adjacent to an existing, competitively-awarded, geothermal lease where there is an identified, validated geothermal energy discovery. They would not just be given away to an existing lease holder. These non-competitive leases would be made at fair-market value as independently determined by the Department of Interior. They could also not be taken away from any existing lease holder, if they were already leased, nor could they be removed from competitive leasing if they had already been nominated to be competitively leased.

These safeguards are intended to insure that this new non-competitive lease authority is a limited exception to the general policy of competitive leasing for geothermal resources on our public lands. At the same time, this new authority will help ensure that when and where a geothermal resource has been discovered, the project developer will be able to tap that resource and turn it into a viable, commercial energy business and provide clean, renewable energy for our country.

This bill is a companion to bipartisan legislation sponsored by Representative Jay Inslee in the House of Representatives. The House Committee on Natural Resources held hearings on the underlying House bill, H.R. 3709, in February of this year. The legislation Sen. Risch and I are introducing today incorporates changes resulting from those hearings, primarily making it clear that any non-competitive leases issued under this authority would be at fair-market value.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleagues from Idaho and Oregon, Senator James Risch, Senator Mike Crapo, and Senator Jeff Merkley, in introducing the Geothermal Production Expansion Act of 2010. This legislation will amend an already existing law--the Geothermal Steam Act--governing the way the Federal Government leases public lands for the development of geothermal energy projects.

Geothermal energy facilities provide a continuous supply of renewable energy with very few environmental impacts. Although the United States has more geothermal capacity than any other country, this potential has been barely tapped. This shortfall is partly due to the high initial cost and risk involved in locating and developing geothermal resources. Like oil and natural gas exploration, until exploration and production wells are actually drilled, the true energy value of the site is not known nor is the full extent of the underground reservoir or energy source.

This legislation is intended to expand the future production of geothermal energy on federally-owned lands by taking some of the uncertainty and guess work out of the leasing and development process by allowing the Interior Department to issue geothermal leases for adjacent lands on a non-competitive basis, based on fair-market value. This would allow a geothermal developer to expand a successful geothermal lease without being forced into a bidding war with speculators or uncooperative competitors who might threaten project expansion or even prevent the project from reaching commercial scale.

Under current law, the Department of Interior is charged with issuing geothermal energy leases through a competitive lease sale. There are, however, several situations where the Department is allowed to issue non-competitive leases, for example, if there were no competitive bids offered, or where there is an already existing mining claim, or where the geothermal energy will be used directly on site for heating or other uses and not sold as electricity. This legislation would add an additional category of non-competitive leases for lands that are immediately adjacent to an existing, competitively-awarded, geothermal lease where there is an identified, validated geothermal energy discovery. They would not just be given away to an existing lease holder. These non-competitive leases would be made at fair-market value as independently determined by the Department of Interior. They could also not be taken away from any existing lease holder, if they were already leased, nor could they be removed from competitive leasing if they had already been nominated to be competitively leased.

These safeguards are intended to insure that this new non-competitive lease authority is a limited exception to the general policy of competitive leasing for geothermal resources on our public lands. At the same time, this new authority will help ensure that when and where a geothermal resource has been discovered, the project developer will be able to tap that resource and turn it into a viable, commercial energy business and provide clean, renewable energy for our country.

This bill is a companion to bipartisan legislation sponsored by Representative Jay Inslee in the House of Representatives. The House Committee on Natural Resources held hearings on the underlying House bill, H.R. 3709, in February of this year. The legislation Sen. Risch and I are introducing today incorporates changes resulting from those hearings, primarily making it clear that any non-competitive leases issued under this authority would be at fair-market value.

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

Mr. President, today, along with my colleagues Senators Sessions, McCaskill, and Thune, I am introducing a bill to help crime victims and state courts recover the restitution and fees that are owed to them. This bipartisan 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 Court Fee Tax Intercept Act is endorsed by a broad array of court, government, law enforcement, and crime victims organizations. The bill is supported by the National Center for Victims of Crime, the National District Attorneys Association, the American Probation and Parole Association, 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, and the Government Finance Officers Association.

I urge all colleagues to support this bipartisan legislation.