Floor Statements

Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate segments of the Molalla River as Wild and Scenic. I am pleased to be introducing this legislation with my colleague from Oregon, Senator Merkley. This legislation has already been introduced by Representative Schrader in the House, who is a champion for protecting the river. The Molalla River Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 2009 will designate an approximately 15.1-mile segment of the Molalla River, and an approximately 6.2-mile segment of Table Rock Fork Molalla River as a recreational river under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.

The Molalla River Wild and Scenic Rivers Act protects a popular Oregon destination that provides abundant recreational activities all of which take place among the abundant wildlife that call this area home. The scenic beauty of the Molalla River provides a backdrop for hiking, mountain biking, camping, and horseback riding, while the waters of the river are a popular destination for fishing, kayaking, and whitewater rafting enthusiasts. My bill would not only preserve this area as a recreation destination, but would also protect the river habitat of the Chinook salmon and Steelhead trout,

along with the wildlife habitat surrounding the river, home to the northern spotted owl, the pileated woodpecker, golden and bald eagles, deer, elk, the pacific giant salamander, and many others.

The Molalla River is not only an important habitat for wildlife and a popular northwest recreation destination, but it is also the source of clean drinking water for the towns of Molalla and Canby, Oregon. Protecting the approximately 21.3 miles of the Molalla River will provide the residents of these Oregon towns with the assurance that they will continue to receive clean drinking water, and will provide all the people of the Pacific Northwest and beyond the knowledge that this important natural resource will be preserved for continued enjoyment for years to come.

I want to express my thanks to the Molalla River Alliance--a coalition of more than 45 organizations that recognize that this river is a jewel. Michael Moody, the President of this Alliance, made sure that irrigators, city councilors, the mayor, businesses and environmentalists all came together on this. I look forward to working with Senator Merkley, Representative Schrader, and the bill's supporters to advance this legislation to the President's desk.

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

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that I hope will enable our national intelligence agencies to increase their employees' proficiency in critical foreign languages. I have been a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee for over eight years, and during that time I have sat in a number of briefings and hearings that addressed foreign language capabilities. While specific details regarding the intelligence community's capabilities are generally classified, it is no secret that there is still a great need for more analysts and agents trained in key foreign languages. Over the past few years there have been a number of new initiatives designed to address this problem from different angles, and even newer initiatives are being introduced this year. The legislation that I am introducing today, which I have drafted along with Senator Chambliss of Georgia, is not designed to replace any of those initiatives--rather, we think it will complement those other initiatives by filling a key gap.

Let me explain this gap a little, so it will be clear what problem we are trying to fix. Most efforts to improve the language capabilities of various intelligence agencies focus on recruiting Americans who have a background in critical foreign languages--either from their education, or from their family. But this only attacks the problem from one angle. If you want the national security workforce to have the strongest language skills possible, you also need to improve language training for people who already work for the intelligence agencies. This means both teaching the basics of key languages to more people, and helping people who are already proficient improve their skills further. Unfortunately, language training is time-intensive, and this can mean that personnel are diverted from short-term priorities.

Here is an example of how this problem might crop up in practice. Imagine that you are the supervisor of a group of 10 people somewhere in the intelligence community, working on counterterrorism issues, and that one of those employees decides he wants to go spend several months in intensive language training to improve his Arabic. This would be a good career move for that individual, and a good long-term investment for your agency. But for you, the supervisor, it means that you might be short-handed for several months while one of your employees is off getting language training. Since you have a fixed number of positions available for your office, it is difficult for you to replace someone while they are gone. This means that as the supervisor you actually have an incentive to resist letting that employee head off for language training, since it will leave your team less well-equipped to meet short-term priorities.

I am not saying that all supervisors within the intelligence community are focused solely on short-term priorities, to the detriment of our long-term security interests. But I am saying that if we want our intelligence agencies to effectively balance short- and long-term priorities, we need to give them incentives that encourage them to do so, and not penalize people who try to balance short-term needs and long-term goals.

Here is how the bipartisan legislation that Senator Chambliss and I are introducing today would attempt to address this problem. Our bill would give the Director of National Intelligence the authority to transfer additional positions to offices whose personnel are

temporarily unavailable due to language training. The Director of National Intelligence is uniquely situated to evaluate which offices are most in need of these extra positions, and could transfer them to the places where they would do the most good.

So, to return to my previous example, if you were the supervisor of a young counterterrorism analyst who wants to take 6 months to go learn Arabic, you could go ask the Director of National Intelligence to transfer an extra position to your office for that 6 month period. That way, you could bring someone else in on a temporary basis to do that analyst's work while they are gone for training. The analyst and the agency would get the long-term benefits of additional language training, and you, the supervisor, would not have to sacrifice in the short-term.

Senator Chambliss and I do not claim that this legislation will revolutionize the intelligence community's language capabilities overnight. But it is our hope that it will make it easier than it is today for managers to balance short- and long-term priorities. If we can achieve that it will be good for our national intelligence workforce, and for our national security interests.

Mr. President, how much time remains on the Democratic side?

Mr. President, many Senators on both sides of the aisle are working constructively to fix American health care. For several years, I have spent time listening to colleagues, going to the offices of 85 Senators and at least that many in the House, and to thousands of others in the public and private sectors, about their ideas for fixing American health care. My aim with these discussions has been to find common ground and to chart a path so that this Congress and this President can do something this country has never done before: enact real health reform.

Today, I come to the floor to lay out the specifics of real health care reform. The President said yesterday that there has never been a better opportunity to get the job done; to improve the lives of all Americans and guarantee quality, affordable coverage to all of our people.

The question now is will Democrats and Republicans in the Senate rise to this challenge? Will this Congress and the President overcome the fear tactics

that have derailed past efforts? But maybe equally as important: Will this Congress and our President dare to pass real reform?

The pitfall, as I see it, is that too often we have been afraid of failure. If we draft legislation with an eye only on what we think can get passed, on what we think the American people will buy, if we play it too safe, my fear is that we will miss the opportunity for real reform. I believe that passing a reform bill that does not reform the health care system is about as wrong as not passing any bill at all.

President Obama said yesterday he will only support legislation that ``earns the title of reform.'' I agree with the President, which is why I am going to use this morning to lay down a similar marker for what I believe is necessary to ``earn the title of real reform.''

First, real reform means that all of us, and especially the powerful interest groups, must accept changes resisted in the past. Insurers are going to have to change the way they do business. Pharmaceutical companies will have to be more responsive to purchasers that insist on more value and transparency. Doctors and hospitals will be held accountable for the quality of care they provide. Malpractice suits will be held to stricter standards.

Individuals will have to take greater responsibility for their health. Real health reform means changing the way business is done in the private insurance market. It means an end to insurance companies cherry-picking, a practice where the companies take the healthy people and send sick people over to government programs more fragile than they are. No longer should anyone make money by denying care to someone who needs it. That is wrong, and this Congress will make it illegal.

Real reform means everyone is guaranteed coverage by their choice of insurer. Under any new system, insurance companies must be required to cover everyone and they must be required to price with fairness so you do not get discriminated against because of your gender or your health status or your age. It means you will no longer be denied coverage or charged more because you were sick 5 years ago or today or you might be sick 5 years from now.

Real health reform guarantees that all Americans can choose their doctor and their health plan. The President said yesterday: Real reform will give every American access to the insurance exchange where they can choose to keep the care they have or pick a better plan that meets their families' needs. That means if you like the care you have, you can keep it. But it also means that if you do not like the care you have, you can reject it. You can reject it and choose a better plan.

Real reform would not only cover the uninsured, but it will make the lives of all of those who have insurance coverage better. Right now the majority of Americans who are lucky enough to have employer coverage have no choice in where they get their insurance. I believe these Americans deserve choices too.

Some might say that this undermines the employer-based system. No, it does not. Rather, it makes the employer-based system more accountable at the same time that it makes health care more portable. Real health reform means that if you leave your job or your job leaves you, you will not lose your health care coverage.

Real reform will once and for all end the entrepreneurial tax in which Americans are afraid to go into business for themselves because they cannot take their health care with them. The President himself said it best when he wrote in 2006, ``With Americans changing jobs more frequently, more likely to go through spells of unemployment, and more likely to work part time or to be self-employed, health insurance can't just run through employers anymore, it must be portable.''

Real reform will guarantee that all Americans can afford quality health care. No longer should families be forced to pay more for their health insurance premiums than they pay for their housing. Our goal should not be to exempt those Americans who cannot afford to pay, our goal should be to guarantee that every American can afford the health care they need.

Real reform will be affordable for the Nation and for our taxpayers. It will reduce current costs and bring the rate of health care inflation in line with economic growth. Failure to meet this test would result in massive new government obligations and no means to pay for them.

Real reform must end the health care caste system in which low-income Americans are treated as second-class citizens. No longer should low- income Americans have less access to doctors than their Member of Congress or any other American. Today, 37 million adults and 10 million children effectively lack access to a primary care physician. Those are Americans who have health insurance but who cannot find a doctor to care for them. Real reform means ending the caste system in America that, in my view, discriminates against the most vulnerable and most impoverished among us. Real reform means that when you need a doctor you will be able to see one.

Real reform will reward Americans for making smart choices. Americans should be rewarded for choosing the right insurer for their families, and they should be rewarded for choosing a healthy lifestyle. This means creating a health system that no longer focuses primarily on sick care, but puts a priority on prevention as well.

Real reform will change the incentives that drive behavior in the American health system. It will reduce the demand and desire for unnecessary health care services. Health care institutions will no longer profit from the quantity of procedures they run up but will instead be rewarded for quality care.

Real reform will take an axe to administrative costs. Americans will sign up just once for health care. They will have their premiums taken from their withholding so they do not have to worry about making payments. They will go into large efficient groups so they are no longer left on their own in the individual market.

In today's non-system, people are an afterthought to the self- perpetuating bureaucracy of medical billing, reimbursement fights, coverage fights, and outright fraud, waste, and abuse. Like the President said yesterday, real reform will: ``Replicate best practices; incentivize excellence; close cost disparities.'' In effect, he wants to see health care dollars go to pay for quality, efficient health care. And that is what I have described today.

Real reform means providing care. It means guaranteeing that all Americans have good, quality, affordable coverage, coverage that is portable. It means ensuring we end the caste system so all Americans can see doctors when they need one. And it means creating a system that is more intent on keeping people healthy than profiting from illness.

The central question, when it comes to real reform, is not who pays, but how we pay. Because everyone knows that ultimately the American taxpayer is the one footing the bill. It is now Congress's job to create an accountable system that puts the focus where it belongs, not on misguided incentives, not on shedding risk, not on quarterly profits, but on providing quality, efficient care for all our people.

That is what Americans want from this debate about health care reform. That is what I think can bring Democrats and Republicans together, working with the President under the banner of real reform. The country deserves it. It is time for this Congress to give it to our people.

I yield the floor.

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 introduce three bills to add environmental protections for three of Oregon's special natural resources. I have introduced two of these bills before. The Oregon Caves National Monument Boundary Adjustment Act of 2009 and the Lower Rogue Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 2009 were introduced in 2008 but unfortunately there was not an opportunity to move them beyond the Energy Committee. This year, I look forward to moving these two bills forward to final passage, along with a third bill, the Devil's Staircase Wilderness Act of 2009. I am pleased to introduce two of 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, joined by Representatives Blumenauer and Wu.

The first bill I am introducing, S. 1270, the Oregon Caves National Monument Boundary Adjustment Act of 2009, 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 above-ground 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 4,084 acres to include the entire Cave Creek Watershed, and transfer management of the land from the U.S. 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 cannot 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 acres, 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, 1271, the Lower Rogue Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 2009, which expands the Wild and Scenic River protections to Oregon's iconic Rogue River and its tributaries.

The Rogue River is one of our nation's premier recreation destinations, famous for its free flowing waters and the many rafting and fishing opportunities it offers. The headwaters of this great river start in one of Oregon's other great gems--Crater Lake National Park-- and ultimately empty into the Pacific Ocean near Gold Beach on the southwest Oregon coast. Along that stretch, the Rogue River flows through one of the most spectacular canyons and diverse natural areas in the U.S. The river is home to runs of coho, spring and fall chinook, winter and summer steelhead, and has the special distinction of being one of only a few rivers in the country with runs of green sturgeon.

The Rogue River received its first protections in the original Wild and Scenic Rivers Act in 1968. A narrow stretch of land was protected along the river banks. Since that time, a great deal has been learned about the importance of protecting the tributaries that feed into the main stem of the Rogue. Protecting the Wild and Scenic tributaries to the Rogue River is essential to protecting the backbone of one of Oregon's most important sport and commercial fisheries.

In 2008, American Rivers named the Rogue and its tributaries as the second most endangered river in the U.S. I'm hoping to change that today by introducing legislation to protect 143 miles of Wild and Scenic tributaries that feed the Rogue River with cold clean water. The protected tributaries would include Galice Creek, Little Windy Creek, Jenny Creek, Long Gulch--and 36 other tributaries of the Rogue.

By protecting the tributaries that feed this mighty river, I hope that future generations can enjoy the Rogue River as Oregonians and visitors to our State do today.

The third bill I am introducing is, 1272, the Devil's Staircase Wilderness Act of 2009, which designates approximately 29,650 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.

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 my House 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, 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 introduce three bills to add environmental protections for three of Oregon's special natural resources. I have introduced two of these bills before. The Oregon Caves National Monument Boundary Adjustment Act of 2009 and the Lower Rogue Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 2009 were introduced in 2008 but unfortunately there was not an opportunity to move them beyond the Energy Committee. This year, I look forward to moving these two bills forward to final passage, along with a third bill, the Devil's Staircase Wilderness Act of 2009. I am pleased to introduce two of 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, joined by Representatives Blumenauer and Wu.

The first bill I am introducing, S. 1270, the Oregon Caves National Monument Boundary Adjustment Act of 2009, 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 above-ground 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 4,084 acres to include the entire Cave Creek Watershed, and transfer management of the land from the U.S. 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 cannot 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 acres, 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, 1271, the Lower Rogue Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 2009, which expands the Wild and Scenic River protections to Oregon's iconic Rogue River and its tributaries.

The Rogue River is one of our nation's premier recreation destinations, famous for its free flowing waters and the many rafting and fishing opportunities it offers. The headwaters of this great river start in one of Oregon's other great gems--Crater Lake National Park-- and ultimately empty into the Pacific Ocean near Gold Beach on the southwest Oregon coast. Along that stretch, the Rogue River flows through one of the most spectacular canyons and diverse natural areas in the U.S. The river is home to runs of coho, spring and fall chinook, winter and summer steelhead, and has the special distinction of being one of only a few rivers in the country with runs of green sturgeon.

The Rogue River received its first protections in the original Wild and Scenic Rivers Act in 1968. A narrow stretch of land was protected along the river banks. Since that time, a great deal has been learned about the importance of protecting the tributaries that feed into the main stem of the Rogue. Protecting the Wild and Scenic tributaries to the Rogue River is essential to protecting the backbone of one of Oregon's most important sport and commercial fisheries.

In 2008, American Rivers named the Rogue and its tributaries as the second most endangered river in the U.S. I'm hoping to change that today by introducing legislation to protect 143 miles of Wild and Scenic tributaries that feed the Rogue River with cold clean water. The protected tributaries would include Galice Creek, Little Windy Creek, Jenny Creek, Long Gulch--and 36 other tributaries of the Rogue.

By protecting the tributaries that feed this mighty river, I hope that future generations can enjoy the Rogue River as Oregonians and visitors to our State do today.

The third bill I am introducing is, 1272, the Devil's Staircase Wilderness Act of 2009, which designates approximately 29,650 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.

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 my House 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, reserving the right to object, and I do not intend to object, I would ask unanimous consent to be recognized following the remarks of the distinguished Senator from Missouri, and then following the remarks of the distinguished Senator from Utah, that I be allowed to follow him.

Before the Senator leaves the floor, I wish to tell the Senator from Utah how much I am looking forward, on a personal level, to working with him in this 5-month sprint to figure out a way to fix American health care in a bipartisan fashion. Some of the moments I am proudest of have been those when the two of us have been able to team up on health reform. Without getting into it this afternoon, let me say that millions of poor young people who use community health centers are getting services there at no extra cost to our taxpayers, because Senator Hatch was willing to work with this Senator and a group of others, including public interest groups and a wide variety of health care advocates, in order to change malpractice rules. This was done to make sure not only that those who had a legitimate claim got served but also that the bulk of the money went to patients in need. Thousands of low-income Americans get care because Senator Hatch was willing to take a stand for low-income folks. I wish to tell him I am very much looking forward to working with him and our colleagues on a bipartisan basis over the next 5 months to get this job done.

Mr. President, I share the Senator's interests. There are a lot of Senators of good will on both sides of the aisle who want to get this done right.

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

When I was a young man, I got involved working with senior citizens as codirector of the Oregon Gray Panthers. Every day back then, we got up and said we are going to make a difference. We are going to help people and, particularly, for senior citizens we are going to make it possible for them to have a better quality of life.

The distinguished occupant of the chair is, I think, close to my age. We can both recall that in those days if a town had a lunch program for senior citizens, that was considered a big deal. There weren't a whole lot of discount programs. People didn't even talk about home and community-based health care services. In most of the country, back then, if a town had a lunch program for senior citizens, that was considered a full-fledged program for older people.

In those early days with the Oregon Gray Panthers I started thinking about the importance of good-quality, affordable health care. I spent hours and hours back then watching what happened when seniors and their families got exploited in the health care system. The first issue I was involved with concerning senior citizens was a real tragedy. At that time, there were a lot of older people who needed insurance to supplement their Medicare. It was very common for senior citizens then, every time some fast-talking salesman came through, to buy another policy. When I was running the legal aid office for senior citizens I would go to visit older people in their homes, and very often they could take out a shoe box full of

health insurance policies--15 or 20 policies. A lot of them weren't worth the paper they were written on. In fact, they had what were known as subrogation clauses, so that if you had another policy, the first one would not pay off. It was tragic to watch senior citizens walking on an economic tightrope every week, balancing food against fuel and fuel against medical bills, and getting sold all this junk health insurance, and as I said earlier, most of it wasn't worth a lot more than the paper it was written on. I starting saying to people, I want to do something about this. In a few years, I got elected to the House of Representatives, and I had a chance to work with both Democrats and Republicans, a number of them in the Senate today. Chairman Baucus was very involved in the effort.

In the early nineties, we finally drained that swamp of paper. Today it is possible for a senior to have just one of these policies, not 15 or 20, and have the extra money to spend on other essentials. The coverage is standardized so you don't need to be some kind of Houdini in order to figure it out.

That effort resulted in the only tough law on the books today that really has teeth in it to regulate and stop some of these private insurance ripoffs. I am very proud to have taken a role along with some of my colleagues in the Senate in changing it.

Democrats and Republicans, as part of health reform, are going to have to fix the insurance market for the nonelderly population. The insurance market today for those who are not in Medicare or in the veterans system, but who instead have private coverage, is inhumane. It is all about cherry-picking. It is about trying to find healthy people and send sick people over to government programs more fragile than they are. That is today's insurance market.

Fortunately, a big group of Democratic Senators and Republican Senators are now on record saying they want to change that. They want to make sure, for example, that people cannot be discriminated against if they have a preexisting condition. These Senators want to make sure, for example, that instead of being sent off to the individual insurance market, where people don't really have any clout or any bargaining power, people will be able to be part of a bigger group so they get more value for their health care dollar. In this larger group market, insurance companies pay out a bigger portion of the premium dollar in terms of benefits.

Democrats and Republicans are prepared to, in effect, turn the current system of private insurance around completely and say: Instead of basing it on cherry-picking, which is what it is about today, in the future, private insurers should have to take all comers. They should not discriminate. People should pool into large groups, and the companies should compete on price, benefits, and quality. There will have to be prevention and wellness so it is not just sick care, as Senator Hatch touched on very eloquently.

That is something Democrats and Republicans already are on record as coming together to support. Fixing the private insurance marketplace is a fundamental part of health reform.

There are other areas where Democrats and Republicans can join forces. One that I care most about is making health care coverage portable so that you do not lose your coverage when either you leave your job or your job leaves you.

This is an especially serious problem for the millions of folks who are laid off today. They go to a program called COBRA, which, I might note, is the only Federal program named after a poisonous snake. Colleagues have improved it, certainly, in the stimulus to try to provide additional assistance. But it is still part of a dysfunctional system that has not changed a whole lot since the 1940s. Much of the rules with respect to coverage--and certainly, in my opinion, that have led to the lack of portability--were made in the 1940s, when there were wage and price controls, and when big decisions got made that affect health care today.

Back in the 1940s, the rules made some sense for those times. People would usually go to work somewhere and pretty much stay put for 20 or 25 years until you gave them a gold watch and a 20,000-calorie retirement dinner. That is not what the workforce is about today.

Today the typical worker changes their job 11 times by the time they are 40. So what workers need is portable health care coverage, coverage they can take from place to place. People do not need to find that when they lose their jobs, they go out and face discrimination in the insurance marketplace where they are not able to afford insurance, even with the COBRA subsidies which, of course, run out often before they get their next position.

The current system is also anti-entrepreneur because very often somebody who works for a business has a good idea and they would like to go into the marketplace and try it out, but if they have an illness, they cannot leave their job because they are not going to be able to get coverage at their next job.

Once again, Democrats and Republicans in the Senate are on record as being willing to make a fundamental change in the way the system works today. They are on record in favor of portability and guaranteeing to Americans who lose their job or want to go somewhere else the ability to take their coverage with them. This system would be administered in a seamless kind of way so you wouldn't have to go out and reapply and have physicals and incur excessive costs.

Which leads me to my next point where Democrats and Republicans are in agreement, and that is lowering the crushing costs of health care administration. This Senate has begun to move in the right direction, with the leadership of the Obama administration, to promote electronic medical records. As far as I am concerned, we ought to send these paper medical records off to the Museum of American History and put them next to the typewriter and telegraph.

The Obama administration has made good progress in moving in that direction. But much more needs to be done to lower administrative costs in health care.

Once again, Democrats and Republicans have teamed up. They've said, let's use the withholding system. We already do that for administering much of the human services benefits on which our people rely. We will make sure people sign up once so they don't have to go through it again and again. We will pool people into these larger groups so they don't have to experience the excessive administrative costs that are associated with smaller groups, and they will have portable coverage so our people do not have to apply time and again, every time they change their job.

For each one of these issues--insurance reform, portability, lower administrative costs--already there exists a significant group of Democrats and Republicans in the Senate willing to join forces.

My own view is these are not partisan issues, and I think there are other areas that can also be tackled together by Democrats and Republicans.

One of the most contentious of those upcoming issues involves the tax rules for American health care. The reason these are so important is, of course, they are vital to Americans who are trying to pay for their health care and other essentials. These tax rules, which are upwards of $250 billion a year, amount to the biggest federal health care program.

Prominent Democrats and prominent Republicans, just in the last few weeks, have said these rules do not make sense. Let me give some examples for colleagues on our side of the aisle of some of the progressives who have called for reforms just in the last couple of weeks. Robert Reich, the former Secretary of Labor, certainly one of the leading progressive thinkers in our country, has talked about the regressivity of these rules, how they disproportionately favor the most affluent. Bob Greenstein, the head of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, is on record with the same views. Both of those reflect the comments of individuals who are progressive.

Suffice it to say, a number of conservatives have spoken out against these rules as well. Milton Friedman, going back to a legendary conservative, began to speak out against these rules some time ago.

We ought to deal with these issues on a bipartisan basis. I know of no Senator--not a single one--who is going to support taxes on middle- class people on

their health care. It is off the table. It is not going to happen. There are 100 of us. Not a single one of us is going to support taxing those individuals. But I do think Democrats and Republicans, just like Robert Reich and Bob Greenstein on the Democratic side and conservatives going back to Milton Friedman on the Republican side, have said we can come together and find a way to make sure in the future these rules do not subsidize inefficiency and also disproportionately favor the most affluent.

What is tragic in the State of Delaware, the State of Oregon, the State of Georgia, is, if somebody does not have health care coverage and works in a furniture store outside Atlanta, they, in effect, have their Federal tax dollar subsidize somebody who is particularly well off who decides they want to get a designer smile in their health care plan.

Can we not all say in the interest of protecting taxpayers and fairness that we want that person who is interested in their designer smile to be able to buy as many of them as they want; but can we not agree, Democrats and Republicans, that if they are going to get a designer smile, they are going to pay for it with their own money rather than with subsidized dollars?

In each of these areas I mentioned there is an opportunity for Democrats and Republicans to come together. What each of the areas I have touched on deals with is making health care more affordable--more affordable for individuals, more affordable for families, and more affordable for taxpayers who are getting pretty darned worried about the debts that are being incurred and the prospect that their kids and their grandkids are going to have to pick up some of these bills.

I believe one of the keys to making health care more affordable is to make it possible for the individual, largely as part of a group where they can have some clout, to be rewarded for making a financially sound decision for herself and her family and to have a choice to go to the kind of program that makes sense for her and her family.

The current statistics show 85 percent of our people who are lucky enough to have employer coverage get no choice. Let me repeat that. Eighty-five percent of those who are lucky enough to have employer coverage get no choice.

Every one of us is going to require that a final bill protect somebody's right to keep the coverage they have. Mr. President, 100 Senators are going to vote for the requirement that you can keep the coverage you have. But can we not agree, as Democrats and Republicans, that we are also going to say you ought to have some other choices? I would like those choices to be in the private sector. If you can find a plan that is financially in your interest, you can keep the difference between what your health care costs today and what this new health package you buy costs. You can keep the difference. We will have a functioning market. If you save $600, $800 on the health care you buy, you have $800 to go fishing in Oregon, and I suspect the Senators from Delaware and Georgia may have some other ideas for where people can use their savings.

The point is, we will have created a market where there is none now. I consider the current health care system today, for all practical purposes, a money-laundering operation. What we have done largely since World War II is set it up so that third parties call the shots, and there are not any opportunities for individuals who want to make a cost-conscious choice to buy a good quality health care package. In effect, the individual has been divorced from the process completely.

I am not calling for individuals to go off into the health insurance marketplace by themselves. What I am saying is they ought to have the opportunity, as we have as Members of Congress, to be part of a large group where they can have clout, where they aren't discriminated against, where they do have power in the marketplace to make a sensible choice for themselves and their family.

So in each of these areas, Mr. President--and this is why I wanted to come to the floor of the Senate today, because I know emotions are starting to run hot on this health issue--I have outlined ways in which Democrats and Republicans can come together. The Congressional Budget Office, which is the independent arbiter of all of this, has largely scored the proposals I have outlined in the legislation that 14 Senators are in support of as being budget neutral over a 2-year phase- in period. The CBO has said that in the third year the proposals would actually start bending the cost curve downward.

I close with this--and I thank my colleague and friend from Georgia for his patience--I think we have five of our most dedicated legislators working now on a bipartisan basis in two committees to bring Democrats and Republicans together. The leaders on the Finance Committee on which I serve--Chairman Baucus and Senator Grassley have been extremely fair and gracious. They have put untold hours into this issue. Both of them have spent an exceptional amount of time with me, and they have extended that offer to literally any Member of the Senate, to sit down and spend time with them to try to address this bill in a bipartisan way. In the HELP Committee, Senator Kennedy, Senator Dodd, and Senator Enzi who serves on both committees, are extending the same kind of goodwill. I have told the leaders of both of these committees I am going to do everything I can to bring to them the ideas I have outlined today that have strong bipartisan support and have been scored by the Congressional Budget Office as saving money and pushing the cost curve downward. I have great confidence in the leaders of those two committees, because they are showing they want to spend the time to bring the Senate together.

I see the distinguished Senator from Maine on the floor, and I know that for a lot of us who have worked together on health care over a lot of years, this is a historic opportunity. This is the place--the Senate--and this is the time to get it done. I believe Democrats and Republicans coming together can make it happen.

Mr. President, with that I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Healthy Living, Healthy Aging Demonstration Project Act of 2009. This act will provide for a demonstration project to examine whether community-level public health interventions can result in lower rates of chronic disease for individuals who are about to enter the Medicare program. Prevention is a key to health at any age, but especially later in life. I am proud to be introducing a cornerstone of health care reform today.

American people and the U.S. Government need this prevention act for two main reasons. Health care costs continue to rise exponentially and chronic diseases are the number one cause of death and disability in the U.S. One hundred thirty-three million Americans, representing 45 percent of the total population, have at least one chronic disease. Chronic diseases kill more than 1.7 million Americans each year, and are responsible for 7 out of every 10 deaths in the U.S. Furthermore, the vast majority of cases of chronic disease could be better prevented or managed.

The World Health Organization has estimated that if the major risk factors for chronic disease were eliminated, at least 80 percent of all heart disease, stroke, and type 2 diabetes would be prevented, and that more than 40 percent of cancer cases would be prevented. In addition, depressive disorders are common, chronic, and costly. The World Health Organization identified major depression as the fourth leading cause of worldwide disease in 1990, causing more disability than even certain types of heart disease. Research shows that mental health screenings after disease diagnosis for diabetic patients can be cost effective and improve health.

The Healthy Living, Healthy Aging Demonstration Project Act of 2009 will address these costly and chronic health problems before people enter the Medicare program. It calls for the Secretary of Health and Human Services to provide 5-year grants to community partnerships that include the state or local public health department and other community stakeholders such as health centers, providers, small businesses, and rural health clinics to fund evidence-based community-level prevention and wellness strategies. The types of community-based prevention strategies we are looking at in this program include walking programs, group exercise classes, anti-smoking programs, programs to highlight healthy dining options at restaurants, and expanding access to farmer's markets, nutritious foods, and other programs and services recommended by the Task Force on Community Preventive Services.

The Secretary, acting through the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS and in partnership with the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC would implement the demonstration program to test whether these public health interventions targeting 55-64 year olds result in lower rates of chronic disease and reduce costs for the Medicare program. One assessment level of the act will measure the effects of adopting healthy lifestyle strategies on specific individuals who enroll in prevention programs in their communities.

More specifically, program requirements in this act include an individual

health screening conducted by the state or local public health department or its designee. An individual health screening will include the appropriate test for diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, obesity, and tobacco use. Insured individuals who screen positive for chronic disease will be referred for treatment and for mental health screening and treatment to their existing providers or in-network providers. Individuals identified with chronic disease risk factors, such as high blood pressure or obesity, would be engaged in the community health interventions funded through the demonstration, such as walking programs, group exercise classes, or anti-smoking programs. Uninsured individuals who screen positive for chronic disease would be referred to the pre-selected clinical referral source for the demonstration site. Uninsured individuals who do not screen positive for chronic disease will receive information on healthy lifestyle choices and may also enroll in community level prevention interventions.

This program will not only conduct community-based prevention strategies, screenings and health assessments, but also help support follow-up care for uninsured individuals identified with chronic diseases, including determining eligibility for public programs.

I would like to thank Dr. Mary Polce-Lynch from Randolph-Macon College, who has been working in my office through the American Psychological Association and the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and Daniella Gratale from Trust for America's Health, for their work on this important prevention bill.

I urge all of my colleagues to support this important legislation to help Americans adopt the healthiest lifestyles possible and to prevent chronic diseases in later life.

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

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Healthy Living, Healthy Aging Demonstration Project Act of 2009. This act will provide for a demonstration project to examine whether community-level public health interventions can result in lower rates of chronic disease for individuals who are about to enter the Medicare program. Prevention is a key to health at any age, but especially later in life. I am proud to be introducing a cornerstone of health care reform today.

American people and the U.S. Government need this prevention act for two main reasons. Health care costs continue to rise exponentially and chronic diseases are the number one cause of death and disability in the U.S. One hundred thirty-three million Americans, representing 45 percent of the total population, have at least one chronic disease. Chronic diseases kill more than 1.7 million Americans each year, and are responsible for 7 out of every 10 deaths in the U.S. Furthermore, the vast majority of cases of chronic disease could be better prevented or managed.

The World Health Organization has estimated that if the major risk factors for chronic disease were eliminated, at least 80 percent of all heart disease, stroke, and type 2 diabetes would be prevented, and that more than 40 percent of cancer cases would be prevented. In addition, depressive disorders are common, chronic, and costly. The World Health Organization identified major depression as the fourth leading cause of worldwide disease in 1990, causing more disability than even certain types of heart disease. Research shows that mental health screenings after disease diagnosis for diabetic patients can be cost effective and improve health.

The Healthy Living, Healthy Aging Demonstration Project Act of 2009 will address these costly and chronic health problems before people enter the Medicare program. It calls for the Secretary of Health and Human Services to provide 5-year grants to community partnerships that include the state or local public health department and other community stakeholders such as health centers, providers, small businesses, and rural health clinics to fund evidence-based community-level prevention and wellness strategies. The types of community-based prevention strategies we are looking at in this program include walking programs, group exercise classes, anti-smoking programs, programs to highlight healthy dining options at restaurants, and expanding access to farmer's markets, nutritious foods, and other programs and services recommended by the Task Force on Community Preventive Services.

The Secretary, acting through the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS and in partnership with the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC would implement the demonstration program to test whether these public health interventions targeting 55-64 year olds result in lower rates of chronic disease and reduce costs for the Medicare program. One assessment level of the act will measure the effects of adopting healthy lifestyle strategies on specific individuals who enroll in prevention programs in their communities.

More specifically, program requirements in this act include an individual

health screening conducted by the state or local public health department or its designee. An individual health screening will include the appropriate test for diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, obesity, and tobacco use. Insured individuals who screen positive for chronic disease will be referred for treatment and for mental health screening and treatment to their existing providers or in-network providers. Individuals identified with chronic disease risk factors, such as high blood pressure or obesity, would be engaged in the community health interventions funded through the demonstration, such as walking programs, group exercise classes, or anti-smoking programs. Uninsured individuals who screen positive for chronic disease would be referred to the pre-selected clinical referral source for the demonstration site. Uninsured individuals who do not screen positive for chronic disease will receive information on healthy lifestyle choices and may also enroll in community level prevention interventions.

This program will not only conduct community-based prevention strategies, screenings and health assessments, but also help support follow-up care for uninsured individuals identified with chronic diseases, including determining eligibility for public programs.

I would like to thank Dr. Mary Polce-Lynch from Randolph-Macon College, who has been working in my office through the American Psychological Association and the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and Daniella Gratale from Trust for America's Health, for their work on this important prevention bill.

I urge all of my colleagues to support this important legislation to help Americans adopt the healthiest lifestyles possible and to prevent chronic diseases in later life.

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

Madam President, before he leaves the floor, let me tell the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma that I very much appreciate working with him on health care legislation. We did it in the House, and we are going to do it again. I think this time the Senate is going to make history and have comprehensive health reform, and I look forward to working with my colleague on it.

I come here today to express my strong support for the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act. The lead sponsor of this legislation is, of course, Senator Kennedy. I say ``of course'' because the fact is, for four decades Senator Kennedy, often against great odds, has consistently come back again and again to lead the fight to improve health care for the people of our country. Sometimes it was for children. Sometimes it was for seniors. Sometimes it was for the disabled. Sometimes it was for those who have suffered mental illness. I could go on and on, and we would be here until breakfast time if I were to try to itemize all of the major pieces of health reform legislation Senator Kennedy has authored over the last four decades. It is very appropriate that he is the lead sponsor of this legislation. The fact is, after Congress passes this important bill and takes steps to improve public health, we will be very fortunate that Senator Kennedy is going to lead the Senate once more on comprehensive health reform. I wish to make clear as a member of the Senate Finance Committee that I am very much looking forward to Senator Kennedy's involvement in this issue and his championing of the cause of fixing American health care. He has been the leader on this issue for four decades.

I come to this topic with I think a personal perspective that also affects my role as a policymaker. In 1994, when I was a Member of the House, I served on the Health and Environment Subcommittee. It was chaired by Henry Waxman, a great champion of trying to protect children against the dangers of tobacco. Chairman Waxman had the CEOs of major tobacco companies before his subcommittee. He put all of the CEOs under oath, and as expected, Chairman Waxman did a tremendous job in terms of laying out the case for public health. In fact, he was so effective, that by the time it came to my turn, I was hard-pressed to find a question he hadn't already asked the tobacco CEOs. Just as I was thinking about packing up, I turned to some of Chairman Waxman's staff, who are wonderful public servants, and I asked whether any of the members of our committee had asked the tobacco executives if they thought nicotine was addictive. The staff all told me nobody had. They said: You ought to ask them. I wish to take a minute to lay out that historical record of what happened.

I asked each one of the tobacco executives that day back in April of 1994 whether they thought nicotine was addictive. The president of Philip Morris spoke first and said:

I believe nicotine is not addictive, Yes.

Then the chairman and CEO of Reynolds Tobacco Company spoke and said:

Mr. Congressman, cigarettes and nicotine clearly do not

meet the classic definition of addiction. There is no

intoxication.

Then the president of U.S. Tobacco spoke. He said:

I don't believe that nicotine or our products are

addictive.

The chairman and CEO of Lorillard said:

I believe that nicotine is not addictive.

The chairman and CEO of the Liggett Group said:

I believe nicotine is not addictive.

The chairman and CEO of Brown & Williamson said:

I believe nicotine is not addictive.

Finally, the president and CEO of American Tobacco said:

I, too, believe that nicotine is not addictive.

I made a vow after I had asked that question that during the time I would have the honor of serving in the House and later the Senate, to make an effort to do everything I could to hold tobacco companies and other companies that mislead the American people accountable. Today, we are able to do that because of the outstanding leadership of Chairman Kennedy. He is giving us the opportunity to hold accountable the tobacco companies that mislead the public with respect to their marketing practices and with respect to advertising. The Kennedy legislation is, in my view, very much needed to protect the public health--particularly the health of our young people--because it will give us the authority to hold the tobacco companies accountable for their actions.

This is also relevant to the next major health bill that we will be dealing with in the Senate which will take the form of comprehensive health reform--health reform that ensures all Americans have good, quality, affordable coverage and, particularly, does so in a way that holds costs down.

I, gratefully, had a chance to meet with the President today at the White House. The President, who has clearly signaled this will be a top priority for him, has now sent the message that history, to a great extent, is going to judge us on our ability to hold down runaway health costs and cut costs for American families.

In my home State alone, $1.1 billion in health care costs are directly attributed to smoking per year, and it costs the Oregon Medicaid Program nearly $287 million per year. Nationwide, $96 billion in health care costs are directly attributed to smoking. This includes $24.7 billion in smoking-caused Medicare expenditures.

There are enormous financial costs specifically associated with people at an early age getting addicted to tobacco use. Then, of course, there is the extraordinary loss of life that comes about as a result of tobacco. According to the Centers for Disease Control, in the United States, over 400,000 deaths each year are directly attributable to tobacco use. The FDA has given the authority to regulate food and prescription drugs, and it certainly makes sense that the FDA regulates tobacco, which is responsible for the death of over 400,000 Americans per year.

The Senate, because of the leadership of Senator Kennedy, has the unique opportunity to reduce the financial and human toll of tobacco. I wished to recount, briefly, that hearing in 1994, because ever since that time, when the tobacco executives said under oath that nicotine wasn't addictive, I have wished to be part of an effort to hold the tobacco companies accountable when they mislead the American people. As a result of the outstanding leadership of Chairman Kennedy, it is possible for the Senate to finally hold these companies accountable by passing this legislation. I hope that Senators on both sides of the aisle will join me and Chairman Kennedy in supporting this long overdue bill.

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

Mr. President, I am reintroducing the Independence at Home Act together with colleagues in the Senate and the House. Mr. Burr, Mr. Whitehouse, Mr. Cardin and I are proud to join forces with our House colleagues, Mr. Markey, and his cosponsor, Mr. Smith, to move forward with this important legislation to provide a coordinated team-based approach to primary care for chronically ill Medicare beneficiaries in their own homes. Returning to basics like paying doctors for home visits to vulnerable patients, and following them through the course of their illness while saving taxpayers money, is the kind of legislation I am proud to introduce.

The Independence at Home, or IAH, Act comes at the perfect time. The American people and the federal government need to save money on health care, while having more choices and getting better results. This delivery model has a proven track record of doing just this. Similar ``house calls'' programs, currently operating across the country, are reducing costs, improving care quality, and helping people remain independent as long as possible. This delivery model is also providing much needed relief to caregivers who are often juggling a full-time job while caring for their very ill family member. This is medical care Americans want and deserve.

It is not too often that health policy has good outcome results before the pilot program phase begins, but that is exactly the case with the IAH Act. Similar home health delivery models, such as the Veterans Administration's Home-Based Primary Care, Boston, Massachusetts' Urban Medical's House Calls Program, and Portland, Oregon's Housecall Providers have been so successful in improving quality and reducing costs, that our bill guarantees 5 percent savings to Medicare.

These successful home health programs have demonstrated that the optimal way to address the challenges of caring for persons with chronic conditions is to better integrate their care and to work with their caregivers. Medical problems are best managed and coordinated by health care professionals who know their patients, their problems, their medications, and their other health care providers. Using this approach, the Independence at Home Act provides a better, more cost- effective way for Medicare patients with chronic conditions to get the care they need. It further advances Medicare reform by creating incentives for providers to develop better and lower cost health care for the highest cost beneficiaries.

This bipartisan, bicameral bill would create a pilot program to improve in-home care availability for beneficiaries with multiple chronic conditions. This is a win-win for all involved. It will help people remain in their homes for longer periods of time, it will improve the quality of care, and physicians will receive a bundled payment for coordinating this care with a team of healthcare providers.

More specifically, the Independence at Home Act establishes a two- phase three-year Medicare pilot project that uses a patient-centered health care delivery model to ensure that Medicare beneficiaries with multiple chronic conditions can remain independent for as long as possible in a comfortable environment. By incorporating lessons from past Medicare demonstration projects and from current home health

models, this bill provides for programs that hold providers accountable for quality, mandatory annual minimum savings, and patient satisfaction. Savings are generated by providing better care to Medicare beneficiaries with multiple chronic conditions and reducing duplicative and unnecessary services, hospitalization, and other health care costs.

Persons eligible for the program include Medicare beneficiaries with functional impairments, two or more chronic health problems, and recent use of other health services. Each IAH patient will receive a comprehensive assessment at least annually. The assessment will inform a plan for care that is directed by an IAH physician, nurse- practitioner, or physician's assistant. The plan is developed by an IAH plan coordinator in collaboration with the patient and caregiver. Medication management is provided by pharmacists due to their expertise in pharmacology, and electronic medical records and health information technology will be employed to improve patient care and reduce costs.

The two-phase pilot program will take place in the thirteen highest- cost states plus thirteen additional states. After review of Phase I and the evaluation report, the Secretary may elect to expand the program nationwide so it could then become an ongoing benefit for Medicare beneficiaries.

A shared-savings agreement incentive program allows this innovative delivery model to attract and maintain providers. The IAH organization will be required to demonstrate savings of at least 5 percent annually compared with the costs of serving non-participating Medicare chronically ill beneficiaries. The IAH organization may keep 80 percent of savings beyond the required 5 percent savings as an incentive to maximize the financial benefits of being an IAH organization. Any savings beyond 25 percent would be split, with 50 percent directed to the IAH organization and 50 percent to Medicare. In Phase II, the Secretary may modify the payment incentive structure to increase savings to the Medicare Trust Fund only if it will not impede access to IAH services to eligible beneficiaries.

I would like to thank my fellow Senate cosponsors, Richard Burr, Sheldon Whitehouse, and Benjamin Cardin, and my cosponsor in the House, Representative Ed Markey, and his cosponsor, Chris Smith, for their support. I also thank Rahm Emanuel for his support of IAH in the last Congress. I would also like to thank all our staff who worked so hard on this legislation, particularly Gregory Hinrichsen in my office. Finally, I would like to thank the following groups for voicing their support for this legislation: The American Academy of Home Care Physicians; The American Academy of Neurology; The AARP; The Alzheimer's Association; The Alzheimer's Foundation of America; The American Academy of Nurse Practitioners; The American College of Nurse Practitioners; American Academy of Physician Assistants; The American Society of Consultant Pharmacists; The National Family Caregivers Association; The Family Caregiver Alliance/National Center on Caregiving; The American Association of Homes and Services for the Aging; The Housecalls Doctors of Texas; The Maryland-National Capital Home Care Association; The Visiting Nurse Associations of America; Housecall Providers, Inc. of Portland, OR; Intel Corp.; The National Council on Aging; U.S. PIRG; Massachusetts Neurologic Society; Naples Health Care Associates; Urban Medical House Calls of Boston, MA; MD2U Doctors Who Make Housecalls (Louisville, KY); Wyeth Pharmaceuticals.

I urge all of my colleagues to support this important legislation to help Medicare patients get better care at lower cost.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by my colleague, the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire, Judd Gregg, to introduce an important bill that will put patients in the driver's seat of their medical care. Today, my fellow Oregonian Representative Earl Blumenauer is introducing the same bill in the House of Representatives.

On the Senate floor and in the Finance Committee and Health Education Labor and Pensions Committee, senators have been wrestling with health reform. The challenge before the Congress is to both expand quality, affordable coverage to all Americans while containing costs.

Cost containment requires a lot of tough choices because it will require changing how care is delivered. The time of paying for volume and low quality is past. Chairman Baucus rightly recognized the challenges in cost containment and took up this issue as the first area he wanted to address in the series of public roundtables held in the Finance Committee.

I believe the key to transforming the health care system and cost containment is to give patients more choices. Patients should have more choices of health insurance plans. Patients should have a choice of doctor. Patients should also have choices in their medical care.

The research by Dr. Jim Weinstein and Dr. John Wennberg with the Dartmouth Atlas Project has documented regional variations in medical care. They have found both underuse, or the failure to deliver needed evidence-based care, and overuse, or the delivery of unnecessary supply-sensitive care. Regional variations are driven by local medical opinion, rather than sound science or the preferences of well-informed patients. Just because doctors are licensed to have a hammer, doesn't make every patient a nail.

Using their research, Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag and other experts have estimated that as much as 30 percent of medical spending today goes to care that is unnecessary. That is 30 percent of $2.5 trillion is $750 billion going to care that does not make patients healthier and may even harm them.

The current standard of medical care in the U.S. fails to adequately ensure that patients are informed about all their treatment options and the risks and benefits of those options. This leads to patients getting medical treatments they may not have wanted had they been fully informed of their treatment options and integrated into the decision making process. In order to deliver the right care at the right time, informed patient choice should be the goal of medical care.

Shared decision making is a collaborative process between the doctor and patient when they discuss the trade-offs among treatment options and discuss the patient's preferences and values. Shared decision making uses patient decision aids, an educational tool like a video or pamphlet that helps patients understand, communicate their beliefs and preferences related to their treatment options, and decide what medical treatments are best for them with their provider based on their medical treatment options, scientific evidence, circumstances, beliefs and preferences.

Informed patients choice depends on clinical comparative effectiveness research that compares the effectiveness of health care treatments. Shared decision making and patient decision aids use clinical comparative effectiveness research so that doctors and patients together make the right medical treatment choice for each individual patient.

This bill creates a three stage phase in of patient decision aids and shared decision making into the Medicare program. Phase I of the pilot is a 3-year period allowing `early adopting' providers--those who already have experience using patient decision aids and incorporating them into their clinical practices--to participate in the pilot providing data for the Secretary and also serve as Shared Decision Making Resource Centers. During this period, an independent entity will develop consensus based standards for patient decision aids and a certification process to ensure decision aids are effective and provide unbiased information. An expert panel then recommends to the Secretary which patient decision aids may be used in this program.

Phase II is a 3-year period during which providers will be eligible to receive reimbursement for the use of certified patient decision aids. New providers may be added on an annual basis allowing for the gradual and voluntary expansion of shared decision making and patient decision aids to a large portion of the country.

The final stage requires all Medicare providers to ensure that Medicare beneficiaries receive shared decision making and patient decision aids prior to receiving treatment for a preference sensitive condition. If a provider does not ensure that a patient receives a patient decision aid then the provider's reimbursement may be reduced by no more than 20 percent.

This legislation is built on a shared savings model distributing 50 percent of the savings to participating providers based on their participation and performance on quality measures. Twenty-five percent of the savings are used to expand provider participation providing financial support to the Shared Decision Making Centers and providers. The final 25 percent savings are returned to the Medicare program. As shared decision making becomes the standard of practice, the shared savings percentages phases out.

I believe that this simple approach to informed patient choice is critically important to giving patients real choices by engaging them in their health care. As we look to expand access to health coverage, this bill provides a bipartisan, sensible path to putting patients in the driver's seat.

I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this bill, and I look forward to working with Chairman Baucus and Ranking Member Grassley and other members of the Finance Committee to secure passage of this important bill.

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

Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce two bills that will provide two important communities in rural Oregon with the means to promote their cultural history and their economic development opportunities, S. 1139 and S. 1140.

Like anywhere in America, the leaders in rural communities in my state are working every day to build the best place they can. And in many rural communities in my state, that means not much happens without the Federal Government involved. Like many places in the Western United States, the Federal Government owns much of the land surrounding these small communities. To be sure, many of these lands are treasures; they are the source of a vibrant tourism economy; an attraction for individuals and businesses to move to the region; and the daily outlet for the people lucky enough to live there.

By the same token, this high percentage of Federal land ownership sometimes limits the ability of local governments and civic leaders to solve problems and serve the public. The Federal Government can and should be an active partner in advancing communities and improving a region's quality of life.

So today I am introducing legislation that demonstrates the possibilities that can come from a quality Federal Government partnership with a proactive, innovative community that faces challenging economic conditions and a dominant pattern of Federal land ownership.

My first bill, the La Pine Land Conveyance Act, would convey two parcels of property to Deschutes County, Oregon. The bill directs the transfer of Bureau of Land Management BLM, lands to Deschutes County, that will enable the small town of La Pine to develop rodeo and equestrian facilities, public parks, and other recreation facilities.

La Pine has a set of unique challenges well known to the people of Deschutes County. The town recently incorporated, and with incorporation has come a feeling in the community that good things can happen if they work together to make their town as good as it can possibly be.

My bill proposes the transfer of 320 acres of BLM land contiguous to the La Pine city limit, on its western boundary. Ownership of this location will enable construction of public equestrian and rodeo facilities that have become increasingly important in La Pine. The property is within reasonable walking distance of downtown, creating an ideal parade route for the annual 4th of July Frontier Days parade. In addition, the land will provide a location for development of ball fields, parks, and recreation facilities, which can be developed as the town grows and budgets allow.

The La Pine Rodeo and Frontier Days events are currently facing the last year they can hold their events on the currently utilized location because that private property is being developed for other uses. So looking towards the Federal Government, who controls the vast majority of land in the La Pine area, to find a solution provides the right kind of partnership between the federal and local government.

My bill also directs the transfer of approximately 750 acres of BLM lands to Deschutes County for the purpose of expanding the town's wastewater treatment operation.

More than two years ago my office participated in discussions between the La Pine community leaders and the BLM concerning the La Pine community's need for land to serve public purposes. Due to staffing limitations, BLM asked the City to choose one top priority for a land transfer under the Recreation and Public Purposes Act. The La Pine City Council responded immediately that its top priority was

the acquisition of land to enable expansion of their sewer district.

To date, the land has not been transferred, which make this small community unable to be competitive for state and federal economic stimulus funds.

This project is too important to let languish. Perhaps the most important issue affecting water quality in Deschutes County involves the threat to groundwater and the Deschutes River from household septic systems in southern Deschutes County, the region around La Pine. This project directly reduces nitrate loading into south county groundwater in two ways. First, by enabling expansion of the District service boundary to residential areas where septic systems are generating elevated groundwater nitrate levels; and second, by closing the current location for spreading treated effluent, over a relatively high groundwater area, to this new location which is judged not to threaten groundwater. That is why I am introducing legislation today to make sure this transfer moves forward.

My second bill, the Wallowa Forest Service Compound Conveyance Act would convey an old Forest Service Ranger Station compound to the City of Wallowa, Oregon. In Wallowa County, this Forest Service compound was built by the Civilian Conservation Corps in the 1930's. For many years it was the center of town and this site continues to represent the natural and cultural history of one of eastern Oregon's most beautiful communities. The City of Wallowa, along with County Commissioners, the local arts organizations, and a broad group of community leaders intend to restore this important example of Pacific Northwest rustic architecture and tribute to bygone times, making a valuable community interpretive center at this site. The conveyance of this property will allow the community to move forward with this project. The community is currently working to list the Ranger Station on the National Register of Historic Places, and ownership by the City will allow this coalition to restore the buildings and again develop a vibrant community center. Oregon Public Broadcasting aired a segment depicting an early 20th century railroad logging community--a significant part of the rich and diverse history and traditions that will be preserved and celebrated as this Forest Service Compound is developed as an interpretive center.

I want to express my thanks to all the citizens and community leaders that have worked to build their communities and develop these projects. They represent the pioneering spirit and vision that defines my State.

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

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

Mr. President, I am reintroducing the Independence at Home Act together with colleagues in the Senate and the House. Mr. Burr, Mr. Whitehouse, Mr. Cardin and I are proud to join forces with our House colleagues, Mr. Markey, and his cosponsor, Mr. Smith, to move forward with this important legislation to provide a coordinated team-based approach to primary care for chronically ill Medicare beneficiaries in their own homes. Returning to basics like paying doctors for home visits to vulnerable patients, and following them through the course of their illness while saving taxpayers money, is the kind of legislation I am proud to introduce.

The Independence at Home, or IAH, Act comes at the perfect time. The American people and the federal government need to save money on health care, while having more choices and getting better results. This delivery model has a proven track record of doing just this. Similar ``house calls'' programs, currently operating across the country, are reducing costs, improving care quality, and helping people remain independent as long as possible. This delivery model is also providing much needed relief to caregivers who are often juggling a full-time job while caring for their very ill family member. This is medical care Americans want and deserve.

It is not too often that health policy has good outcome results before the pilot program phase begins, but that is exactly the case with the IAH Act. Similar home health delivery models, such as the Veterans Administration's Home-Based Primary Care, Boston, Massachusetts' Urban Medical's House Calls Program, and Portland, Oregon's Housecall Providers have been so successful in improving quality and reducing costs, that our bill guarantees 5 percent savings to Medicare.

These successful home health programs have demonstrated that the optimal way to address the challenges of caring for persons with chronic conditions is to better integrate their care and to work with their caregivers. Medical problems are best managed and coordinated by health care professionals who know their patients, their problems, their medications, and their other health care providers. Using this approach, the Independence at Home Act provides a better, more cost- effective way for Medicare patients with chronic conditions to get the care they need. It further advances Medicare reform by creating incentives for providers to develop better and lower cost health care for the highest cost beneficiaries.

This bipartisan, bicameral bill would create a pilot program to improve in-home care availability for beneficiaries with multiple chronic conditions. This is a win-win for all involved. It will help people remain in their homes for longer periods of time, it will improve the quality of care, and physicians will receive a bundled payment for coordinating this care with a team of healthcare providers.

More specifically, the Independence at Home Act establishes a two- phase three-year Medicare pilot project that uses a patient-centered health care delivery model to ensure that Medicare beneficiaries with multiple chronic conditions can remain independent for as long as possible in a comfortable environment. By incorporating lessons from past Medicare demonstration projects and from current home health

models, this bill provides for programs that hold providers accountable for quality, mandatory annual minimum savings, and patient satisfaction. Savings are generated by providing better care to Medicare beneficiaries with multiple chronic conditions and reducing duplicative and unnecessary services, hospitalization, and other health care costs.

Persons eligible for the program include Medicare beneficiaries with functional impairments, two or more chronic health problems, and recent use of other health services. Each IAH patient will receive a comprehensive assessment at least annually. The assessment will inform a plan for care that is directed by an IAH physician, nurse- practitioner, or physician's assistant. The plan is developed by an IAH plan coordinator in collaboration with the patient and caregiver. Medication management is provided by pharmacists due to their expertise in pharmacology, and electronic medical records and health information technology will be employed to improve patient care and reduce costs.

The two-phase pilot program will take place in the thirteen highest- cost states plus thirteen additional states. After review of Phase I and the evaluation report, the Secretary may elect to expand the program nationwide so it could then become an ongoing benefit for Medicare beneficiaries.

A shared-savings agreement incentive program allows this innovative delivery model to attract and maintain providers. The IAH organization will be required to demonstrate savings of at least 5 percent annually compared with the costs of serving non-participating Medicare chronically ill beneficiaries. The IAH organization may keep 80 percent of savings beyond the required 5 percent savings as an incentive to maximize the financial benefits of being an IAH organization. Any savings beyond 25 percent would be split, with 50 percent directed to the IAH organization and 50 percent to Medicare. In Phase II, the Secretary may modify the payment incentive structure to increase savings to the Medicare Trust Fund only if it will not impede access to IAH services to eligible beneficiaries.

I would like to thank my fellow Senate cosponsors, Richard Burr, Sheldon Whitehouse, and Benjamin Cardin, and my cosponsor in the House, Representative Ed Markey, and his cosponsor, Chris Smith, for their support. I also thank Rahm Emanuel for his support of IAH in the last Congress. I would also like to thank all our staff who worked so hard on this legislation, particularly Gregory Hinrichsen in my office. Finally, I would like to thank the following groups for voicing their support for this legislation: The American Academy of Home Care Physicians; The American Academy of Neurology; The AARP; The Alzheimer's Association; The Alzheimer's Foundation of America; The American Academy of Nurse Practitioners; The American College of Nurse Practitioners; American Academy of Physician Assistants; The American Society of Consultant Pharmacists; The National Family Caregivers Association; The Family Caregiver Alliance/National Center on Caregiving; The American Association of Homes and Services for the Aging; The Housecalls Doctors of Texas; The Maryland-National Capital Home Care Association; The Visiting Nurse Associations of America; Housecall Providers, Inc. of Portland, OR; Intel Corp.; The National Council on Aging; U.S. PIRG; Massachusetts Neurologic Society; Naples Health Care Associates; Urban Medical House Calls of Boston, MA; MD2U Doctors Who Make Housecalls (Louisville, KY); Wyeth Pharmaceuticals.

I urge all of my colleagues to support this important legislation to help Medicare patients get better care at lower cost.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by my colleague, the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire, Judd Gregg, to introduce an important bill that will put patients in the driver's seat of their medical care. Today, my fellow Oregonian Representative Earl Blumenauer is introducing the same bill in the House of Representatives.

On the Senate floor and in the Finance Committee and Health Education Labor and Pensions Committee, senators have been wrestling with health reform. The challenge before the Congress is to both expand quality, affordable coverage to all Americans while containing costs.

Cost containment requires a lot of tough choices because it will require changing how care is delivered. The time of paying for volume and low quality is past. Chairman Baucus rightly recognized the challenges in cost containment and took up this issue as the first area he wanted to address in the series of public roundtables held in the Finance Committee.

I believe the key to transforming the health care system and cost containment is to give patients more choices. Patients should have more choices of health insurance plans. Patients should have a choice of doctor. Patients should also have choices in their medical care.

The research by Dr. Jim Weinstein and Dr. John Wennberg with the Dartmouth Atlas Project has documented regional variations in medical care. They have found both underuse, or the failure to deliver needed evidence-based care, and overuse, or the delivery of unnecessary supply-sensitive care. Regional variations are driven by local medical opinion, rather than sound science or the preferences of well-informed patients. Just because doctors are licensed to have a hammer, doesn't make every patient a nail.

Using their research, Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag and other experts have estimated that as much as 30 percent of medical spending today goes to care that is unnecessary. That is 30 percent of $2.5 trillion is $750 billion going to care that does not make patients healthier and may even harm them.

The current standard of medical care in the U.S. fails to adequately ensure that patients are informed about all their treatment options and the risks and benefits of those options. This leads to patients getting medical treatments they may not have wanted had they been fully informed of their treatment options and integrated into the decision making process. In order to deliver the right care at the right time, informed patient choice should be the goal of medical care.

Shared decision making is a collaborative process between the doctor and patient when they discuss the trade-offs among treatment options and discuss the patient's preferences and values. Shared decision making uses patient decision aids, an educational tool like a video or pamphlet that helps patients understand, communicate their beliefs and preferences related to their treatment options, and decide what medical treatments are best for them with their provider based on their medical treatment options, scientific evidence, circumstances, beliefs and preferences.

Informed patients choice depends on clinical comparative effectiveness research that compares the effectiveness of health care treatments. Shared decision making and patient decision aids use clinical comparative effectiveness research so that doctors and patients together make the right medical treatment choice for each individual patient.

This bill creates a three stage phase in of patient decision aids and shared decision making into the Medicare program. Phase I of the pilot is a 3-year period allowing `early adopting' providers--those who already have experience using patient decision aids and incorporating them into their clinical practices--to participate in the pilot providing data for the Secretary and also serve as Shared Decision Making Resource Centers. During this period, an independent entity will develop consensus based standards for patient decision aids and a certification process to ensure decision aids are effective and provide unbiased information. An expert panel then recommends to the Secretary which patient decision aids may be used in this program.

Phase II is a 3-year period during which providers will be eligible to receive reimbursement for the use of certified patient decision aids. New providers may be added on an annual basis allowing for the gradual and voluntary expansion of shared decision making and patient decision aids to a large portion of the country.

The final stage requires all Medicare providers to ensure that Medicare beneficiaries receive shared decision making and patient decision aids prior to receiving treatment for a preference sensitive condition. If a provider does not ensure that a patient receives a patient decision aid then the provider's reimbursement may be reduced by no more than 20 percent.

This legislation is built on a shared savings model distributing 50 percent of the savings to participating providers based on their participation and performance on quality measures. Twenty-five percent of the savings are used to expand provider participation providing financial support to the Shared Decision Making Centers and providers. The final 25 percent savings are returned to the Medicare program. As shared decision making becomes the standard of practice, the shared savings percentages phases out.

I believe that this simple approach to informed patient choice is critically important to giving patients real choices by engaging them in their health care. As we look to expand access to health coverage, this bill provides a bipartisan, sensible path to putting patients in the driver's seat.

I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this bill, and I look forward to working with Chairman Baucus and Ranking Member Grassley and other members of the Finance Committee to secure passage of this important bill.

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

Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce two bills that will provide two important communities in rural Oregon with the means to promote their cultural history and their economic development opportunities, S. 1139 and S. 1140.

Like anywhere in America, the leaders in rural communities in my state are working every day to build the best place they can. And in many rural communities in my state, that means not much happens without the Federal Government involved. Like many places in the Western United States, the Federal Government owns much of the land surrounding these small communities. To be sure, many of these lands are treasures; they are the source of a vibrant tourism economy; an attraction for individuals and businesses to move to the region; and the daily outlet for the people lucky enough to live there.

By the same token, this high percentage of Federal land ownership sometimes limits the ability of local governments and civic leaders to solve problems and serve the public. The Federal Government can and should be an active partner in advancing communities and improving a region's quality of life.

So today I am introducing legislation that demonstrates the possibilities that can come from a quality Federal Government partnership with a proactive, innovative community that faces challenging economic conditions and a dominant pattern of Federal land ownership.

My first bill, the La Pine Land Conveyance Act, would convey two parcels of property to Deschutes County, Oregon. The bill directs the transfer of Bureau of Land Management BLM, lands to Deschutes County, that will enable the small town of La Pine to develop rodeo and equestrian facilities, public parks, and other recreation facilities.

La Pine has a set of unique challenges well known to the people of Deschutes County. The town recently incorporated, and with incorporation has come a feeling in the community that good things can happen if they work together to make their town as good as it can possibly be.

My bill proposes the transfer of 320 acres of BLM land contiguous to the La Pine city limit, on its western boundary. Ownership of this location will enable construction of public equestrian and rodeo facilities that have become increasingly important in La Pine. The property is within reasonable walking distance of downtown, creating an ideal parade route for the annual 4th of July Frontier Days parade. In addition, the land will provide a location for development of ball fields, parks, and recreation facilities, which can be developed as the town grows and budgets allow.

The La Pine Rodeo and Frontier Days events are currently facing the last year they can hold their events on the currently utilized location because that private property is being developed for other uses. So looking towards the Federal Government, who controls the vast majority of land in the La Pine area, to find a solution provides the right kind of partnership between the federal and local government.

My bill also directs the transfer of approximately 750 acres of BLM lands to Deschutes County for the purpose of expanding the town's wastewater treatment operation.

More than two years ago my office participated in discussions between the La Pine community leaders and the BLM concerning the La Pine community's need for land to serve public purposes. Due to staffing limitations, BLM asked the City to choose one top priority for a land transfer under the Recreation and Public Purposes Act. The La Pine City Council responded immediately that its top priority was

the acquisition of land to enable expansion of their sewer district.

To date, the land has not been transferred, which make this small community unable to be competitive for state and federal economic stimulus funds.

This project is too important to let languish. Perhaps the most important issue affecting water quality in Deschutes County involves the threat to groundwater and the Deschutes River from household septic systems in southern Deschutes County, the region around La Pine. This project directly reduces nitrate loading into south county groundwater in two ways. First, by enabling expansion of the District service boundary to residential areas where septic systems are generating elevated groundwater nitrate levels; and second, by closing the current location for spreading treated effluent, over a relatively high groundwater area, to this new location which is judged not to threaten groundwater. That is why I am introducing legislation today to make sure this transfer moves forward.

My second bill, the Wallowa Forest Service Compound Conveyance Act would convey an old Forest Service Ranger Station compound to the City of Wallowa, Oregon. In Wallowa County, this Forest Service compound was built by the Civilian Conservation Corps in the 1930's. For many years it was the center of town and this site continues to represent the natural and cultural history of one of eastern Oregon's most beautiful communities. The City of Wallowa, along with County Commissioners, the local arts organizations, and a broad group of community leaders intend to restore this important example of Pacific Northwest rustic architecture and tribute to bygone times, making a valuable community interpretive center at this site. The conveyance of this property will allow the community to move forward with this project. The community is currently working to list the Ranger Station on the National Register of Historic Places, and ownership by the City will allow this coalition to restore the buildings and again develop a vibrant community center. Oregon Public Broadcasting aired a segment depicting an early 20th century railroad logging community--a significant part of the rich and diverse history and traditions that will be preserved and celebrated as this Forest Service Compound is developed as an interpretive center.

I want to express my thanks to all the citizens and community leaders that have worked to build their communities and develop these projects. They represent the pioneering spirit and vision that defines my State.

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

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