Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise to discuss the subject of U.S. energy policy and to introduce a series of bills to address this issue,

Mr. President, I rise to discuss the subject of U.S. energy policy and to introduce a series of bills to address this issue,

Mr. President, in the last Congress there was a Wyden- Obama amendment to better protect the rights of those who have credit cards in our country. My original cosponsor has obviously moved on and is doing important work for our country at 1600 Pennsylvania where he continues to advocate for the rights of consumers.

But I am very hopeful, and discussions are now taking place with Chairman Dodd and Ranking Minority Member Shelby, that it will be possible to get a bipartisan agreement here in the next day or so to advance the legislation that I and then Senator Obama originally proposed the last Congress.

I am very pleased that my original cosponsor this session is my new colleague from Oregon, Senator Jeff Merkley, who has a long record of advocating for the rights of consumers as well.

What Senator Obama and I originally proposed in the last Congress would direct the Federal Reserve to establish a safety rating system for credit cards. What then-Senator Obama and I sought to do was to make sure that cards with terms that are consumer friendly would be rated up, and cards with the tricky terms, the terms that are larded with qualifiers and exceptions and waivers, the legal mumbo jumbo that is so deceptive in the marketplace, those cards would be rated down. Under our legislation, credit cards with five stars would be deemed the safest; those with one star would be considered the least safe.

For example, credit card agreements that state that terms can be changed at any time for any reason would automatically get a one-star rating, because clearly that is the kind of consumer practice that has caused great difficulty for American consumers and is plain wrong.

I see our proposal operating much like the five-star crash rating system works for new cars. That system has worked. Americans have become better educated about how their car will protect them in a crash, and the rating system has helped incentivize the car industry as far as basic safety measures. When that rating system first

came out, a lot of the cars only received one or two stars. But then the basic principles of competition and free enterprise kicked in, and now you have got many of those cars receiving four or five stars.

I am very confident that what then-Senator Obama and I sought to do 2 years ago will accomplish exactly the same thing with credit cards. Similarly, the safety star rating will increase competition between credit card companies over the fairness of the terms in their contracts, which will create an incentive for them to use fairer terms for more credit cards.

Credit card companies would have to display the rating on all of their marketing materials, billing statements, agreement materials, and on the back of the card itself. Consumers would be able to see the ratings for their card and how their card got that rating on a stand- alone Web site that was created and operated by the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve would be responsible for updating the star system and making sure that if new terms or practices come to market, those terms or practices would be assigned an appropriate rating.

Card issuers currently compete on their ability to advertise, mostly advertising their interest rates and annual fees, but not on the fairness of their credit card contract. Card issuers advertise their great interest rates and their great rewards, and then try to tell the consumers that their cards will cost less to use. But too often the important information is buried, the information about early deadlines and arbitrary rules, and what happens is that these cards end up costing millions of consumers more.

I believe--and Senator Merkley and I continue to advocate this cause, a cause that began in the last Congress--we believe that consumers deserve to have the tools that are needed to make informed choices about what they buy. That, of course, is what the marketplace is all about, getting information to consumers so they can make the choices that make sense for them. We believe our legislation empowers consumers to better make the marketplace work in this critical area of our economy.

I want to close by saying I have always felt that in a free society, Americans have a right to make decisions that, by perhaps someone else's assessment, would be wasteful or ill advised. In effect, we have in our country a constitutional right to be pretty foolish with our money. The problem with credit cards is that too often the marketplace fails the millions and millions of Americans who want to manage their money responsibly. Too often the major provisions of these credit card agreements require that you have an advanced legal degree--not just a basic law degree but an advanced legal degree--in order to sort out the terms. I do not think it is right to say that you ought to, in effect, be someone who spends their free time reading the Uniform Commercial Code in order to make sense out of these credit card agreements.

I am very hopeful that now with millions of our people walking on an economic tightrope, it will be possible to use classic free market principles to encourage better behavior. This is not heavy-handed regulation. This is not run-from-Washington micromanagement that is going to jack up somebody's credit card rates. This is about disclosure. This is about making sure that people in the marketplace understand what is in front of them, and that they are in a better position with objective information, in this case supplied by the Federal Reserve, overseen in a system operated by the Federal Reserve.

Consumers would be able to make better choices while forcing the credit card companies to compete not on who can best craft these technical legalistic terms of legal mumbo jumbo, but instead who best informs the public about their credit card choices and who addresses the rights of consumers with responsible practices.

I will continue to talk with Chairman Dodd and the ranking minority member Senator Shelby. They are familiar with what Senator Obama and I sought to do in the last Congress. I am glad this bill is on the floor. It is high time the rights of credit card consumers were addressed, that credit card consumers got a fair shake.

I think I have got the best possible partner, somebody who has been a long-standing advocate of consumers' rights, in Senator Merkley. We are hopeful in the next day or so that we will be able to forge an agreement with the chairman and the ranking minority member.

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

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business for up to 15 minutes.

Mr. President, the Senate Finance Committee, on which I serve, is about to take up the toughest issue in the debate about health care reform; that is, the question of how to pay for it.

To be credible, that means showing that you are not going to sit around and wait for years and years to start cutting costs but, in fact, you are going to start generating savings, in the $2.5 trillion our country spends on health care, quickly. And you must do it in a bipartisan fashion that is acceptable to our people.

So, today, I offer the four pillars of immediate health care cost containment. Each one of these pillars is an idea that is supported by influential Democratic Senators and influential Republican Senators in the Senate.

The first pillar of immediate health care cost containment requires that

there be tax relief for the middle class but no more tax subsidies for designer smiles. It sounds incredible, but today hard-working middle- class folks who are uninsured or underinsured--every day--watch their taxes go to subsidize designer smiles for the most affluent that would be worthy of Hollywood.

The first pillar of health care cost containment starts saving billions of dollars immediately by taking away unneeded tax breaks and beefing up health care tax relief for middle-class workers and their families.

The second pillar of immediate health care cost containment means taking an axe to health care administrative costs. Americans are drowning in health care rules and administrative hassles. Now you can junk the health care bureaucracy by doing everything just once: signing up for the health care you want; paying for it through the withholding system you use with every paycheck; keeping what you have, if you leave your job, or your job leaves you; and easily finding out about the costs and quality of health care services that are near you, and doing it on line.

The third principle of immediate health care cost containment is everybody is in, and everyone has to be personally responsible. You cannot lower health care costs in this country without good, quality, affordable coverage for all. If you do not cover everyone, there is too much cost shifting and not enough prevention.

Personal responsibility is just as important. Americans cannot fix health care unless everyone secures basic coverage, with extra help for folks who would have difficulty affording that. More than 11 million people with incomes of well over $60,000 do not buy basic health insurance, and that is part of the reason hospital emergency rooms are so busy in America. Cutting health care costs means getting everybody in the system, and it means everyone would be personally responsible.

Finally, the fourth principle of immediate health care cost containment is a revolution in health insurance. Today, health insurance is about cherrypicking. The private insurance companies scour your health history, and they want you if you are healthy and wealthy. Sick people, on the other hand, are sent to Government programs more fragile than they are.

Holding down costs soon means changing this, prohibiting the insurance companies from discriminating against those with illnesses and requiring a system that features real competition--real competition where the insurance industry does not compete to see who is the best at leaving out those who have health problems but competition that is based on benefit and quality and price. That is not Government-run health care. That is old-fashioned competition--the kind of bedrock principles of competition our country understands.

When insurance companies compete on the basis of price, benefit, and quality, that is about as pure a kind of competition as you could have in our country, and it would revolutionize the health insurance business in our country.

Each one of these four pillars of immediate health care cost containment is supported by influential Democrats and Republicans in the Senate. If these four principles were adopted, the Senate could go to the country and show our people that on the health issue they care about the most--which is containing costs--the Senate has a plan for cost containment that will kick in quickly, in the next few years--not something for which you have to wait 10, 15, 20 years from now. And certainly there are a lot of changes in the health care system that ought to be made now because they will save money in 10 or 15 years.

But the four pillars of immediate health care cost containment I outlined this afternoon--tax relief for the middle class and no more tax breaks for designer smiles; taking an axe to health care administrative costs; everybody in the system, and everyone personally responsible; and a revolution in the health insurance business--those are ideas that are now sponsored by Democrats and Republicans in the Senate and will soon save health care costs. They will reduce health care costs, and do it quickly, so that the Senate can be credible with the country on this issue of health care reform.

There are other important principles to this question of getting health care on track. Chairman Baucus, in my view, has done yeoman work in terms of his sessions to look at the various issues--delivery and coverage.

I have made the case, with considerable passion, on the coverage question that I think Americans want on the coverage issue--coverage that is at least as good as Members of Congress have--and the Congressional Budget Office has said it is possible to pay for that, again, with the kinds of principles of cost containment I have outlined. Other colleagues, I am sure, will have other views with respect to what the basic benefit package ought to be about.

I also think it is going to be very important to send a straightforward message to those who have coverage that there are considerable benefits for them in reform as well. We have talked on this floor before--Democrats and Republicans--about making sure everybody can keep the coverage they have. That is something Senators hear about at every meeting they have when they discuss health care, and I think there are going to be 100 Senators voting in favor of the principle that all our people ought to be able to keep the coverage they have.

But there are two other words I think those people with coverage are looking for. I say to the Presiding Officer, you and I have had some discussion on this issue before. Those folks with coverage want to hear about how they are going to be wealthier and healthier with the health care reform legislation that would be passed in the Congress. On this issue, the fundamental question is going to be about increasing the choices that individuals have for their coverage.

I have not spoken about this on the floor of the Senate in the past, but I was flabbergasted to learn that those who are lucky enough to have employer-based coverage in this country--of that group, 85 percent of them get no choice at all. They get one package, and that is it. So you have 85 percent of the people in this country who are lucky enough to have health care coverage who do not get what their elected officials from Colorado and Oregon and everywhere get.

We get a full menu of health care choices. Of course, that is a big factor in holding down health care costs for all because then you have some competition. And if one company does not do well in 2009, everybody is off in 2010 and choosing somebody else.

So it is going to be very important to show those with coverage-- people who want to be healthier and wealthier after health care reform is passed--that one of the ways to get some additional money in your pocket is to have more choices. Because when you have only one choice, of course, there are not the kind of competitive juices at work in your health care system that even Members of Congress have.

So what I have been interested in is saying that if you want to stay with your employer's package--absolutely--Democrats and Republicans in the Senate are committed to doing that. But if you, for example, want to choose one of the private alternatives that would be established in health reform legislation, and would be certified by your State as protecting consumers, you ought to be able to make that choice. And if in making that choice you save money relative to what it might cost for your employer's package, you get to get those savings and--without offense to Colorado--you can use the money to go fishing in Oregon because we have created a marketplace.

So I wanted to come today and lay out the four immediate principles of health care cost containment. I think there will be other central questions, such as the issue of coverage and the question of how to make sure the Senate keeps faith with the 160 million people--it is about 160 million people, on any given day, who have employer-based coverage and wish to keep what they have--who would like to be healthier and wealthier, and, finally, if they want to leave their job or their job leaves them, their coverage ought to be portable and they can take it with them.

Finally, let me note that I think Chairman Baucus and Senator Grassley, the leaders on the Finance Committee, are doing an exceptionally good and an exceptionally fair job in terms of tackling this issue. The fact

is, health care reform, particularly financing it, is not a subject for the fainthearted. There is a reason this issue has been tough to tackle since the days of Harry Truman of 60 years ago. But under the leadership of Chairman Baucus and Senator Grassley and the Finance Committee--and I think I can speak for Senators on both sides of the aisle that we are very appreciative of what Chairman Kennedy and Senator Enzi are doing in the HELP Committee. The four of them are our committee leaders, our chairs and our ranking minority members. I believe that this time, after 60 years of working on this issue, it can get done.

The fact is, for health reformers, the history of trying to fix health care is almost the story of unrequited love. If you look back on this issue, almost every 15 years reformers say: This is the time. I finally found the one. I am going to be able to have my dreams realized.

Of course, it has been exactly 15 years since the last effort in 1994, during the Clinton years. Harry and Louise pretty much soured that romance in 1993 and 1994. But I do think, largely because of the good work being done by Chairman Baucus and Senator Grassley and Chairman Kennedy and Senator Enzi, this year is different. A lot of colleagues on both sides of the aisle have moved toward an approach that I believe will allow us to come together.

There is a recognition that Democrats have been right on the proposition that if you fix this, you have to cover everybody. If you don't get all Americans high-quality, affordable coverage, you have that cost-shifting I spoke about and inadequate attention to prevention. I think there is a recognition that colleagues on the other side of the aisle in the Republican Party are making valid points as well. There ought to be private choices. It is important not to freeze innovation. We ought to stay clear of price controls. So there is an opportunity now, with the Senate being led by two very fine chairs and ranking minority members, to get this done.

I will close with an observation from a number of economists. Our country clearly is concerned about the cost of these bailouts and financial obligations in the banking and housing sector. Most of those folks believe that the astounding sums being spent on financial bailouts--they are going to look like a rounding error if health care is not fixed. So the stakes are very high. Fixing the economy means fixing health care.

With the principles I have outlined here today, the four immediate principles of health care and cost containment, I think the Senate can get off on the most important and most difficult issue of health care-- containing costs--and do it in a bipartisan way.

Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I note the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, tomorrow, Oregon will be celebrating its first Military Families Appreciation Day.

All over my State, people will gather to recognize the sacrifice and service of military families and veterans throughout history.

It is a day set aside to bring people together, to learn from and support each other and to celebrate the families who serve on the home front while their wives, husbands, sons, daughters, and parents serve on the front lines.

America's military is the strongest in the world, and they draw their strength from families back home. Yet far too frequently, the sacrifices and dedication of military families have gone unacknowledged and unappreciated.

That is why Oregon will be proudly recognizing military families on this inaugural Military Families Appreciation Day.

In our Nation's recent history, millions of servicemembers have been placed in harm's way for our country, standing watch as freedom's guardian. But families, too, have stood watch at home, facing their own challenges, all too often alone.

Military families sacrifice so much--they are patriots cloaked in a quiet strength and they make all the difference to the success of each mission. They have faced the special challenges of long and repeated deployments, separations from loved ones, and frequent relocations with great courage and resolve. In doing so, their selfless dedication has directly contributed to the mission readiness of our soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, Coast Guardsmen, and Merchant Marines.

So to every military family, I want to offer a nation's thanks.

For the times you have stood and watched a ship sail from the harbor, an aircraft disappear into the clouds, or a bus convoy pull out of sight, not sure when your loved one would return, we thank you.

For the anniversaries, birthdays, and holidays you have celebrated alone, we thank you.

For the helping hand you have extended to other military families when there was need--truly creating a military family--we thank you.

A country is not strong because of its armed services alone, rather the armed services draw strength from the civilians who support them. With military families setting a superior example of devotion, courage, and commitment, America will always be a nation of strength.

Mr. President, today I wish to show my appreciation for the dedication and commitment of the Oregon National Guard. They are the best that Oregon has to offer. The best our Nation has to offer. I am honored, this weekend, to personally see off the largest Oregon guard deployment since World War II.

Right now, 2,700 citizen soldiers from across my State are gearing up for a 10-month deployment to Iraq, and I am positive that their actions will bring honor to the United States and to the great State of Oregon.

Despite progress, Iraq remains a dangerous place. But our National Guard soldiers are well-trained, well-led and well-equipped. I know they will do their best to complete their missions and return to their families. I also know that our Nation has done its best to give them the tools they need to do so safely and expediently.

I have been fortunate enough to meet with many of Oregon's citizen soldiers more than once--first in the dust and heat of southern Idaho last summer then in their armories in the days leading up to training at Camp Roberts. I made a promise to see them off when they are deployed and I intend to be there to welcome all of them home after their courageous service is complete.

These are uncertain times--not only in the United States but around the world. It is a world that is once again turning its eyes toward America for leadership and inspiration. Now, more than ever, it is time for America to be strong for those in need.

The Oregon National Guard is the face of that strength. Our men and women in uniform are this country's greatest representatives to the world. While being strong, we must also demonstrate our values through compassion, justice, and integrity.

I realize these soldiers have a difficult road ahead, which will involve both professional and personal struggles. Whether this is their first deployment or their fourth, their dedication and commitment will be tested on a daily basis--but, courage and determination are their hallmarks.

Members of the Oregon National Guard are exactly the kind of soldiers that our Founding Fathers believed could best defend this Nation-- volunteer citizen soldiers with roots in the community and a patriotic spirit.

I salute Oregon's great band of citizen soldiers. May God bless them and see each and every one of them home safe.

Mr. President, I rise to speak on behalf of the Sebelius nomination. And before he leaves the floor, I also want to say to my friend from Arizona that I think he knows I share many of his substantive concerns about what it is going to take to get bipartisan health reform legislation. For example, a key component of it will have to be malpractice reform. It will have to include the areas the Senator from Arizona has touched on--the question of comparative effectiveness. And I think in both of these areas there is a long way to go to get it right. It is my interest, particularly this afternoon, to assure the Senator from Arizona that there is going to be an effort to pull out all the stops to make this a bipartisan effort here in the Senate to fix America's health care, and I want to tell him I am looking forward to working with him on that.

To pick up on this point, many Senators have come to the floor to discuss the needs of tackling health care issues in the kind of bipartisan fashion that Senator Kyl has talked about and I have mentioned. I strongly support the Senators who are making this a special focus of this discussion today when we consider Governor Sebelius's candidacy to head the Department of Health and Human Services.

For a bit of background, Senator Bennett and I, in particular, have been working for several years in talking to most Members of the Senate. I personally have gone to see about 85 Senators in their office, to listen to them, to get their views about health care reform, all with an idea to make the issue of reconciliation on health care irrelevant. What we wish to do, Senator Bennett and I, working closely with the chairs and ranking minority members of our key committees, is to find a way to get a very substantial bipartisan vote here in the Senate for health care reform. I think we are well on our way to doing that. I believe there is literally a philosophical truce on health care within the grasp of the Senate.

When one looks at this debate, both political parties have had valid points to make. My party, for example, is right on the idea that we cannot fix health care unless all Americans get good-quality, affordable coverage. The reality is, we cannot begin to organize the market for health care unless we get everybody covered. Without covering everybody, there is too much cost shifting, there is not enough focus on prevention and wellness, and we have a real question about what to do about clogging up hospital emergency rooms--which is an issue in Colorado and Oregon and across the land.

So Democrats have been right on the point of saying to fix American health care all Americans have to have good-quality, affordable coverage. But our colleagues on the other side of the aisle--and Senator Bennett has championed this; Senator Grassley has championed this--have been right in saying there needs to be a significant role for the private sector in American health care as well. It is going to be important not to freeze innovation, to steer clear of price controls, to have a wide berth for the private sector to innovate and offer private sector choices as part of the solution to this challenge of fixing American health care. So we meld together these two points of view--Democrats who have been right on the idea that we have to cover everybody, Republicans who have had a valid point with respect to a role for the private sector--and, in my view, we are on our way to 68, 70, 72 votes in the Senate for comprehensive health reform.

So we very much need to tackle this in a bipartisan way. In my view, there are a few words that speak volumes about Governor Sebelius's outlook on the need for having bipartisanship in the health care arena. Those words were spoken by a former leader in the Senate, Bob Dole. I want to quote for the Senate a couple of the remarks made by Senator Dole when he came before us on the Senate Finance Committee.

Senator Dole said:

For more than 20 years, Kathleen Sebelius has served the

State of Kansas as a legislator, insurance commissioner and

Governor. All of her accomplishments required bipartisan

approaches. Her work has earned her the respect of Democrats

and Republicans. . . .

Senator Dole goes on to note that one of our most respected former colleagues, Nancy Kassebaum Baker, has actually written Members of the Senate with respect to her support for Governor Sebelius.

Then Senator Dole goes even further, and he says:

Governor Sebelius and I are from different parties. We have

different views on different issues, some highly

controversial. But that is not the issue here today.

Candidate Obama is now President Obama and gets to make the

Cabinet selections. He has determined that she is well

qualified and that she understands the importance of the

enormous task before her when confirmed by the entire Senate.

I agree and that's why I am here to support her nomination.

We need a Secretary of Health and Human Services--

Said Senator Dole--

who has the skills, experience and courage to shape and guide

this historic legislation through Congress. It will not be

easy but I know Governor Sebelius will never stop trying.

Those were the words of former Senator Dole, somebody to whom I look again and again for counsel on health care. I think it is fair to say a great many of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle look to him for counsel on health care.

Those who know Governor Sebelius best, such as Senator Bob Dole, have, in my view, said it better than any of us could. They know her, they have worked with her, they have watched her try to forge coalitions. As insurance commissioner, she has been a leader nationally in the insurance field with the National Association of Insurance Commissioners. I think she is going to be a pragmatic coalition builder who is going to work with a very specific focus toward trying to bring the Senate together to tackle this critical issue.

We know there are some particularly important challenges ahead of us. I have said one of the first priorities in health reform is to make sure those who have coverage today--in Colorado and Oregon and across the country--see that health reform works for them. Some writers have called that group the ``contentedly covered,'' the people who already have health care coverage in America today.

I think there are four important priorities for the Congress to address in making sure those who have health care coverage today see that the system works for them. Those priorities are, first of all, making sure they can keep the coverage they have. We have written it into the Healthy Americans legislation. Chairman Baucus has it in his white paper. It has to be a matter of law. Sometimes people joke about it: We can put it in the Pledge of Allegiance. It is vitally important that people be able to keep the coverage they have.

The second factor that is so important is to make sure people who have coverage have options to save some money on their health care in the future. They want to contain costs because they know right now they are not even getting an increase in take-home pay because health care gobbles up everything in sight. So let's make them wealthier in the process of health reform, and let's say that, if you want to have one of the additional choices, the private sector choices that are offered in health reform, and you can save some money by choosing one of those choices rather than keeping what you have, you get to keep the difference. That is something I think will be attractive to those who have coverage.

The third area we ought to zero in on is making sure folks with coverage have the opportunity to be healthier. I think it is well understood that much of American health care is more sick care than health care. So let's get some incentives in place so everybody has a

new focus on wellness. I personally would like to see those who are on Medicare who lower their blood pressure and lower their cholesterol get reduced premiums. It is called Outpatient Care, Part B premiums. Let's give them a lower premium when they lower their blood pressure and lower their cholesterol.

When there is a parent in Oregon or Colorado or across the country who enrolls a youngster in a wellness or prevention program--let's say for a weight problem--let's give the parent a reduction in their premium, again, to reward prevention. So we let people keep the coverage they have. They are going to be wealthier and they are going to be healthier.

Finally, one last big challenge for those who have coverage. If individuals want to leave their job or their job leaves them, let's make sure their coverage is portable, that they can take it from place to place to place. I think we understand that this economy is real different than what we had in the 1940s, when somebody went to work somewhere and stayed put for 30 years until they received a gold watch and a big retirement dinner.

The typical people in our States, Western States, now change their job 11 times by the time they are 40 years old, and they need portable health coverage. So let's make sure that coverage is something that fits the modern economy--again, consistent with an approach that let's them keep what they have and puts more money in their pocket and gives them the opportunity to be healthier.

I think that is a vision for bipartisan health reform. It certainly has been largely shared by Chairman Baucus and Senator Grassley, and Senator Bennett and I have talked about it in our efforts as well. But it is going to take somebody with the kind of talent that Bob Dole just described, in the words I have offered today, once again, before the Senate Finance Committee.

There is a reason that after 60 years of debate on health care reform in America that it has not actually gotten done. This is hard work, in terms of building a coalition. I put 6 years of my life into just the most recent effort and have visited with most of the Senate on it. I think there is a clear desire, given the importance to our economy.

The fact is, we cannot fix the economy unless we fix American health care. Most of the experts are saying a lot of these budgets we are dealing with right now, the various bailouts--those bailouts are going to look like a rounding error compared to American health care if we don't get on top of these escalating costs. It has to be done, both in terms of fixing the economy, ensuring quality of life for our people, and because now the country is looking to the Congress to work in a bipartisan way. They have watched a lot of the past squabbles, they have watched a lot of the bickering over issues in the past, and here is an opportunity, as Senator Dole has described, of having a person who wants to work in a bipartisan way around a number of the ideas that I have mentioned this afternoon.

I hope colleagues will support Governor Sebelius. I hope they will reflect on the words of Senator Dole because I think he said it best when he came before us on the Senate Finance Committee. I think there is an opportunity now for the Senate to show a country--and a country that is legitimately skeptical about Washington's ability to tackle big issues--the Senate now has an opportunity to show that on health care, Democrats and Republicans can come together. We are going to come together with individuals, leaders such as Governor Sebelius, who have shown the talent to work in a bipartisan fashion; and I, particularly, having listened to many of our Republican colleagues on the floor today talking about the Sebelius nomination, want to assure them that I agree with much of what they have said with respect to the need to avoid approaches that are partisan and jam one side or another.

In fact, I have devoted much of the last 6 years to making those kinds of approaches irrelevant, to making reconciliation irrelevant.

I think Governor Sebelius will work with us in a constructive way toward exactly that kind of result. Bob Dole has spoken about her ability to do just that before the Finance Committee, and I hope this nomination will now be approved expeditiously and Democrats and Republicans can work together tackling the premier domestic issue of our time: fixing American health care.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, as the credit crisis has gripped the nation, more and more families are relying on their credit cards to help them weather the storm. Unfortunately, as more folks use their credit cards, many more consumers are falling victim to the industry's abusive practices.

I am pleased that my colleagues in both the Senate and House are working hard to swiftly fix some of the most egregious existing practices. Like many of my colleagues, I agree that some of the credit card industry's practices are unconscionable. For example some provisions today allow issuers to raise the interest on a consumer to astronomical rates just because of a drop in their credit score or a missed payment on another, unrelated credit card. That's like having your home mortgage go into default because you missed a payment on your car loan. It is not fair and it's predatory.

Clearly, competition in the credit card industry is not working for consumers. Card issuers are not competing on the merits of their cards because consumers are still not able to make good comparisons on the overall cost of using their products. Consumers tend to focus on the interest rate and annual fees, not realizing that many of the little disclosures hidden in the legalese of their contracts can make the real cost of credit significantly higher.

Some practices are truly abusive and it may be best for Congress to eliminate those. However, while eliminating these practices would help protect some of the most vulnerable consumers, it would not solve the underlying systematic problem. For each abusive practice that Congress eliminates, another will pop up. That is why there must be a way to arm consumers with the information they need before they sign up for a credit card in order to reject such unfair practices.

With the financial future of so many Americans now dependent upon the unreadable jargon in credit card documents, consumers need to understand what they are getting into.

That is why I am introducing the Credit Card Safety Star Act of 2009. Last Congress, I introduced this legislation with then-Senator Obama because we both agreed that consumers need a simple way to cut through the unreadable jargon in agreements. My bill creates a safety rating system for credit cards, like the five-star crash rating system for new cars. The rating system for cars helps people understand how their car will protect them in a crash; my bill will help people understand if they can expect their card issuer to treat them fairly or kick them when they are down. Five-star cards would be the safest while one-star cards would be the least safe.

Cards are rewarded for terms that are consumer friendly and get knocked for the tricky terms that tend to get consumers in trouble.

For example, card issuers that can change the terms at any time for any reason or those that make consumers go into default based on credit ratings or other accounts would automatically receive a one-star rating.

However, card issuers that innovate new ways to make their agreements more consumer friendly could get points to out-compete others in the industry. For example, credit cards that give 90 days notice before the issuer intends to change terms, with the option for consumers to opt out, would get a point.

Under my system, card issuers would have to display the ratings on all their marketing materials, billing statements, agreement materials and on the back of the card itself. Consumers would also be able to see the ratings for their card and how their card got that rating on a stand-alone Federal Reserve website.

The Federal Reserve will be responsible for updating the star system and making sure that if new terms or practices come to market, those terms or practices are assigned an appropriate rating.

Additionally, my legislation creates a Credit Card Safety Star Advisory Commission which would study the effectiveness of the star rating system. The Commission would also implement a study that would examine whether it would be better to eliminate certain unfair practices rather than simply giving them a rating under my system.

My bill is designed to work in tandem with the other legislation that has already been introduced. While the Credit Card Safety Star Act will not ban any particular practices, it is designed to update if certain practices are banned.

While my legislation is not a silver bullet to solve all the problems in the credit card industry, it can provide a way forward that will arm consumers with usable information about the tricky terms in these agreements.

I believe it is time to put the free market to the test and see whether we can help consumers make better choices while also encouraging issuers to abandon some of these abusive practices and compete for consumers' business by offering them fair terms they can understand.

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

Mr. President, as the credit crisis has gripped the nation, more and more families are relying on their credit cards to help them weather the storm. Unfortunately, as more folks use their credit cards, many more consumers are falling victim to the industry's abusive practices.

I am pleased that my colleagues in both the Senate and House are working hard to swiftly fix some of the most egregious existing practices. Like many of my colleagues, I agree that some of the credit card industry's practices are unconscionable. For example some provisions today allow issuers to raise the interest on a consumer to astronomical rates just because of a drop in their credit score or a missed payment on another, unrelated credit card. That's like having your home mortgage go into default because you missed a payment on your car loan. It is not fair and it's predatory.

Clearly, competition in the credit card industry is not working for consumers. Card issuers are not competing on the merits of their cards because consumers are still not able to make good comparisons on the overall cost of using their products. Consumers tend to focus on the interest rate and annual fees, not realizing that many of the little disclosures hidden in the legalese of their contracts can make the real cost of credit significantly higher.

Some practices are truly abusive and it may be best for Congress to eliminate those. However, while eliminating these practices would help protect some of the most vulnerable consumers, it would not solve the underlying systematic problem. For each abusive practice that Congress eliminates, another will pop up. That is why there must be a way to arm consumers with the information they need before they sign up for a credit card in order to reject such unfair practices.

With the financial future of so many Americans now dependent upon the unreadable jargon in credit card documents, consumers need to understand what they are getting into.

That is why I am introducing the Credit Card Safety Star Act of 2009. Last Congress, I introduced this legislation with then-Senator Obama because we both agreed that consumers need a simple way to cut through the unreadable jargon in agreements. My bill creates a safety rating system for credit cards, like the five-star crash rating system for new cars. The rating system for cars helps people understand how their car will protect them in a crash; my bill will help people understand if they can expect their card issuer to treat them fairly or kick them when they are down. Five-star cards would be the safest while one-star cards would be the least safe.

Cards are rewarded for terms that are consumer friendly and get knocked for the tricky terms that tend to get consumers in trouble.

For example, card issuers that can change the terms at any time for any reason or those that make consumers go into default based on credit ratings or other accounts would automatically receive a one-star rating.

However, card issuers that innovate new ways to make their agreements more consumer friendly could get points to out-compete others in the industry. For example, credit cards that give 90 days notice before the issuer intends to change terms, with the option for consumers to opt out, would get a point.

Under my system, card issuers would have to display the ratings on all their marketing materials, billing statements, agreement materials and on the back of the card itself. Consumers would also be able to see the ratings for their card and how their card got that rating on a stand-alone Federal Reserve website.

The Federal Reserve will be responsible for updating the star system and making sure that if new terms or practices come to market, those terms or practices are assigned an appropriate rating.

Additionally, my legislation creates a Credit Card Safety Star Advisory Commission which would study the effectiveness of the star rating system. The Commission would also implement a study that would examine whether it would be better to eliminate certain unfair practices rather than simply giving them a rating under my system.

My bill is designed to work in tandem with the other legislation that has already been introduced. While the Credit Card Safety Star Act will not ban any particular practices, it is designed to update if certain practices are banned.

While my legislation is not a silver bullet to solve all the problems in the credit card industry, it can provide a way forward that will arm consumers with usable information about the tricky terms in these agreements.

I believe it is time to put the free market to the test and see whether we can help consumers make better choices while also encouraging issuers to abandon some of these abusive practices and compete for consumers' business by offering them fair terms they can understand.

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

Could I have 10 as well?

Madam President, Chairman Conrad has emphasized how important it will be to tackle the major issues--health care reform and climate change--in a bipartisan way. I wish to spend a few minutes first expressing my support for that position and urging that the conference on the budget proceed expeditiously because then the heavy lifting in the Senate will begin.

For example, for American health care, what is needed is nothing short of a transformation of our system. American health care is simply broken. Medical costs are gobbling up everything in sight. Middle-class people know their paychecks are not going up, and the prime reason is because medical costs take away all of what would otherwise be a wage increase.

Our newspapers report daily that Americans are being laid off at their jobs. They lose their health benefits. What we see again and again is a spiral of tragedy, as they simply lurch from one effort to another to try to find health care and cannot get it.

For example, on Tuesday, the New York Times published a front page story titled, ``No Job and Soon No Benefits, Race to Help Son Stay Cancer Free.'' Dana Walker of Humble, Texas, was laid off from her job at DHL leaving her and her family without health insurance. Her son Jake is just 21 years old and is a cancer survivor. Now uninsured, the Walkers have had to defer their own care, pay up front for Jake's care, and have essentially been refused care at the hospital that specializes in care. In the article, Mrs. Walker said, ``Your job as a parent is to protect your children at any cost. I really feel like I had let him down.''

I don't believe Mrs. Walker has let her son down. She's doing all she can. In the individual market health insurers can discriminate on the basis of age, gender, family size, geography, health status and pre- existing conditions like cancer. Even though Jake has been cancer free for a year, he can't find affordable health insurance on his own. Insurance companies can pick and choose the customers who are the good risks and leave the bad risks, like Jake Walker, out in the cold. It isn't Mrs. Walker who's let her son down. It's the health care system.

This is not going to be fixed by a piecemeal approach to health care reform that tackles one part of the system or another and produces incremental change for perhaps a short period of time. What is needed is transformational change. I believe Democrats and Republicans in the Senate are committed to that objective.

I think there is a growing recognition that both parties have had a valid point. Democrats, in my view, are correct that you cannot fix health care unless you cover everybody because without full coverage you cannot organize the market. There is too much cost-shifting. There is no emphasis on prevention. You have to get all Americans good quality, affordable care. Republicans have valid points, in my view, as well. You should not just turn everything over to the Government and say that is the answer.

What is really needed for transformational change is containing the costs. The Congressional Budget Office, last May, said that for the amount of money America is spending today on health care, all Americans in a couple years could have good quality, affordable coverage like their Members of Congress. That is what the Congressional Budget Office said when it looked at one approach to dealing with health costs.

I am very confident, under the leadership of Chairman Baucus and Chairman Kennedy, that they will have a lot of support for transformational change so we make sure all Americans have access to good quality, affordable choices, and they get rewarded when they take sensible steps, for example, in preventive health care and wellness and shop carefully for health care coverage.

Today, if you are lucky enough to have health care coverage, you do not get any choice at most employers. That is not the way it is for Members of Congress. So why don't we agree, Democrats and Republicans, after we get this budget conference put together, that we are going to make sure all Americans get good quality, affordable choices like Members of Congress have? Then let's start rewarding them. Let's reward them for sensible prevention. For example, the Safeway Corporation has been doing that for some time. I would like to say that seniors who lower their blood pressure and lower their cholesterol would get reduced Part B premiums. That is the outpatient portion of the Medicare program. But these are areas where Democrats and Republicans can come together.

There has been considerable discussion on the Senate floor about the idea of reconciliation for tackling health care. I think Chairman Conrad is absolutely right in his approach.

I will say there have been many of us on both the Democratic and Republican side, as we have looked to health care, who want to make the issue of reconciliation irrelevant. We want to make the issue of reconciliation irrelevant because we are hoping to bring enough Democrats and Republicans together so we will have 70 or more Senators gathered to fix the health care system.

These issues, ultimately, in my view, are not ones that automatically produce a partisan divide. The private insurance system is also broken. It is about cherry-picking.

Madam President, how much time do I have remaining?

For the remainder of my time, Madam President, let me tick off a number of other areas where Democrats and Republicans on this health care issue can come together for transformative change.

Today's private insurance model is also broken. It is all about cherry-picking. It is about taking healthy people and sending sick people over to Government programs more fragile than they are. So what Democrats and Republicans want to do--again, in the name of transformative change--is we want to say that the companies are going to have to take all comers. We understand that is a key part of health care reform.

But we are going to put them all on equal footing. There are not going to be any price controls or big Federal regulatory systems. But everybody is going to be part of a big group so we contain costs as part of a big pool. We will reward prevention and wellness, which, of course, is not done today. This is where I think it will be possible for firms in the health care area to both do good and do well by offering better service to our people.

Other areas of transformative health care reform: The issue of portability and making sure our people can take their health care coverage with them so they do not lose their coverage when they lose their job or they wish to leave their job. That is what happens today. Of course, much of the health care system does not offer that kind of portability because it is built around what happened in the 1940s, when somebody started working and stayed put for 25 years, until you gave them a gold watch. Well, today the typical worker changes their job 11 times by the time they are 40. We need portable coverage. Democrats and Republicans can work together on that.

I want to close, again in the name of bipartisanship, by talking about how we can help people who have coverage. They have been described by some as the contentedly covered Americans. I

think what we ought to say for those folks, Democrats and Republicans, is, let's let them keep the coverage they have. Let's make sure they are wealthier in the new system because they get rewarded when they engage in those preventive practices or make a good purchase. Let's make sure they are healthier in the new system. Chairman Conrad is here and has talked about improvements, for example, in chronic care, which is certainly part of making Americans healthier.

Finally, let's make sure that if they leave their job or their job leaves them, as I have touched on, they are going to have a safety net of affordable coverage.

Each and every one of those points I have talked about is an issue on which Democrats and Republicans can come together. I hope the Senate will follow Chairman Conrad's advice about proceeding expeditiously. I think there are many Members of the Senate who want to tackle these big issues--climate change and health care--in a manner that makes reconciliation irrelevant because we have brought together the kind of broad majorities that I think are particularly within the grasp of the Senate on this issue of reforming health care. I look forward to working with colleagues on both sides of the aisle for exactly that kind of transformative policy to better meet the needs of the American people.

With that, Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, this is an amendment that Senator Barrasso and I have offered to fully fund the Healthy Forests Restoration Act, by providing an additional $200 million for this purpose. I am very pleased that my colleague from Oregon, Senator Merkley, has also joined us in this amendment as well as Senators Crapo, Kyl, Enzi, Bennett and Hatch.

Significantly, this amendment would provide for full funding for this legislation for the first time since its passage. I helped author the Healthy Forests Restoration Act in 2003--a bipartisan bill that I worked on with a number of my colleagues to help address serious forest health issues and a significant backlog of hazardous fuels that have been building up on our national forests.

When Congress passed the Healthy Forests Restoration Act, HFRA, Congress authorized $760 million in new money to complete hazardous fuel reduction work on 20 million acres. Yet in each of the past years the Bush administration's budget request has fallen short, in my estimation by well over $600 million less than Congress authorized. Because the Healthy Forests Restoration Act was never fully funded in the prior administration, it has never really had the chance to work. Our amendment would ensure that rural communities will finally get the resources they were promised. These funds will put these communities on a path to preventing wildfires and bringing jobs back to the forest.

In hearings before the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, previous administration leaders assured me that even in the face of such severe budget cuts, they could get the work done, possibly within 8 to 10 years. Yet in hearings before the committee we also heard witnesses from the GAO and USDA inspector general's office testify that the agencies were falling far short of meeting this mandate and that hazardous fuels were building up in our forests as much as three times faster than the agencies could remove them.

When you come from a State like mine, where the Federal Government owns so much of the land, the health of those public forests is a very serious issue--one with life or death consequences for communities that are next to these forests and could become raging infernos in the next fire season.

We can no longer dawdle on completing the thinning work that urgently needs to be performed on our Nation's forests. This work would also provide jobs thinning overstocked forests in rural communities, while reducing the threat of wildfires.

Those wildfires are getting more and more costly to fight and consuming more and more of the budget of our public lands agencies. It simply doesn't make sense to not spend the money on preventing the fires and then turn around during the fire season and watch the millions of dollars flow freely while people's homes and livelihoods go up in smoke.

Full funding of the HFRA would also allow for funding to communities so they can implement ``community wildfire protection plans'' developed in areas that are part of ``wildland urban interface'' and living on the edge of our public forests.

I hope my colleagues will support this commonsense amendment and get the Healthy Forests Act back on track.

Amendment No. 840, as Modified

Mr. President, If there is one environmental issue that divides us more than unites us, it's water, especially in the West.

Farmers, ranchers, cities, towns, all compete for limited supplies. Salmon and other economically and culturally important fish depend on its flow. If it is not water quantity, then it is water quality that makes what gets passed on to the next water user the source of contention.

The Clean Water Act has been enormously successful at making water users clean up the water that they use before it is discharged back into lakes, rivers, and streams, and, before it's used by the next person downstream. It has also helped ensure the survival of fish and wildlife.

Over the past 8 years, the U.S. Supreme Court has rendered two major decisions that have restricted the scope of the Act. As it is now being interpreted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Corps of Engineers, the Act no longer prevents the discharge of pollution or fill into many wetlands or intermittent streams, lakes and ponds. By some estimates, more than half the streams in Oregon could be classified as intermittent streams and no longer protected. Another estimate concludes that over one million Oregonians get their drinking water from sources that would no longer be fully protected by the Clean Water Act. I think this is the wrong thing to do.

Last year, I cosponsored S. 1870--the Clean Water Restoration Act-- legislation which was intended to return the protections of the Clean Water Act to the way they were before these two Supreme Court decisions occurred. No more, and no less.

In my town hall meetings around Oregon, I have received questions and complaints about this legislation. The biggest concern that many people had was that this new bill was actually going to expand the reach of the Federal Government over water regulation in ways that would literally threaten the ability of farmers to farm and ranchers to ranch. People were also concerned that this legislation would not only regulate discharges into rivers and streams, but it would also regulate the quantity of water they use.

I am no supporter of Federal water grabs. I would not have cosponsored this legislation in the last Congress if it would threaten Oregon farmers' ability to farm or our ranchers' ability to ranch. I would have opposed it.

Ranchers and farmers and forest owners know how to be stewards of the land they ranch and farm and manage because their livelihoods depend on it,

and if they are not careful about how they manage that land there will be nothing to pass on to the next generation. The same is true for how we must treat our rivers, streams and wetlands.

So over the past few months, my staff and I have worked with Senator Feingold, the primary sponsor of the bill, to clarify that intent of this legislation is to simply restore the interpretation of the Clean Water Act to what it had been before these Supreme Court decisions. No more, and no less.

Earlier this year, in response to my concerns about how the bill would impact rural Oregon, Senator Feingold reiterated in a letter to me his intent that the Clean Water Restoration Act not expand the scope of the law. Sen. Feingold also revised the text of the bill in a way that I believe makes it even clearer that the goal is not to expand the scope of the Clean Water Act beyond what it was in 2001 before the Supreme Court decisions.

First of all, the bill again includes a savings clause that clearly continues the existing exemption for irrigation return flows from Clean Water Act regulation. It continues the exemption for dredged or fill materials from normal farming, silviculture and ranching activities. It continues the exemption for construction and maintenance of farm or stock ponds or irrigation ditches and drainage ditches. It continues the exemption for construction and maintenance of farm roads or forest roads.

Second, the bill now contains a much more detailed set of findings that make it absolutely clear that the intent of Congress with enactment of the bill is to restore the regulatory system for the Clean Water Act to what it was before these two Supreme Court decisions. These findings also make it clear that the bill is not regulating ground water, only surface water, just as the Clean Water Act has always done. The findings make it clear that exclusions for prior converted cropland and manmade impoundments remain in place. They make it clear that the intent is to regulate water quality, not quantity or ownership.

If more changes are needed to ensure that the bill does what Sen. Feingold and I say it does, than I am certainly open to making more changes to make sure the Senate gets this crucial issue right.

Some people do not like the pre-2001 Clean Water Act regulatory system. Some believe that the Supreme Court did the right thing by removing many wetlands and intermittent streams and lakes from the protections of the Clean Water Act. I disagree. I think those protections are needed to protect our water supplies and our environment and wildlife habitat. Farmers and ranchers need those protections for their livelihoods. But I want to be absolutely clear, that I will not support expanding Federal authority in this area beyond what it was before 2001.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, If there is one environmental issue that divides us more than unites us, it's water, especially in the West.

Farmers, ranchers, cities, towns, all compete for limited supplies. Salmon and other economically and culturally important fish depend on its flow. If it is not water quantity, then it is water quality that makes what gets passed on to the next water user the source of contention.

The Clean Water Act has been enormously successful at making water users clean up the water that they use before it is discharged back into lakes, rivers, and streams, and, before it's used by the next person downstream. It has also helped ensure the survival of fish and wildlife.

Over the past 8 years, the U.S. Supreme Court has rendered two major decisions that have restricted the scope of the Act. As it is now being interpreted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Corps of Engineers, the Act no longer prevents the discharge of pollution or fill into many wetlands or intermittent streams, lakes and ponds. By some estimates, more than half the streams in Oregon could be classified as intermittent streams and no longer protected. Another estimate concludes that over one million Oregonians get their drinking water from sources that would no longer be fully protected by the Clean Water Act. I think this is the wrong thing to do.

Last year, I cosponsored S. 1870--the Clean Water Restoration Act-- legislation which was intended to return the protections of the Clean Water Act to the way they were before these two Supreme Court decisions occurred. No more, and no less.

In my town hall meetings around Oregon, I have received questions and complaints about this legislation. The biggest concern that many people had was that this new bill was actually going to expand the reach of the Federal Government over water regulation in ways that would literally threaten the ability of farmers to farm and ranchers to ranch. People were also concerned that this legislation would not only regulate discharges into rivers and streams, but it would also regulate the quantity of water they use.

I am no supporter of Federal water grabs. I would not have cosponsored this legislation in the last Congress if it would threaten Oregon farmers' ability to farm or our ranchers' ability to ranch. I would have opposed it.

Ranchers and farmers and forest owners know how to be stewards of the land they ranch and farm and manage because their livelihoods depend on it,

and if they are not careful about how they manage that land there will be nothing to pass on to the next generation. The same is true for how we must treat our rivers, streams and wetlands.

So over the past few months, my staff and I have worked with Senator Feingold, the primary sponsor of the bill, to clarify that intent of this legislation is to simply restore the interpretation of the Clean Water Act to what it had been before these Supreme Court decisions. No more, and no less.

Earlier this year, in response to my concerns about how the bill would impact rural Oregon, Senator Feingold reiterated in a letter to me his intent that the Clean Water Restoration Act not expand the scope of the law. Sen. Feingold also revised the text of the bill in a way that I believe makes it even clearer that the goal is not to expand the scope of the Clean Water Act beyond what it was in 2001 before the Supreme Court decisions.

First of all, the bill again includes a savings clause that clearly continues the existing exemption for irrigation return flows from Clean Water Act regulation. It continues the exemption for dredged or fill materials from normal farming, silviculture and ranching activities. It continues the exemption for construction and maintenance of farm or stock ponds or irrigation ditches and drainage ditches. It continues the exemption for construction and maintenance of farm roads or forest roads.

Second, the bill now contains a much more detailed set of findings that make it absolutely clear that the intent of Congress with enactment of the bill is to restore the regulatory system for the Clean Water Act to what it was before these two Supreme Court decisions. These findings also make it clear that the bill is not regulating ground water, only surface water, just as the Clean Water Act has always done. The findings make it clear that exclusions for prior converted cropland and manmade impoundments remain in place. They make it clear that the intent is to regulate water quality, not quantity or ownership.

If more changes are needed to ensure that the bill does what Sen. Feingold and I say it does, than I am certainly open to making more changes to make sure the Senate gets this crucial issue right.

Some people do not like the pre-2001 Clean Water Act regulatory system. Some believe that the Supreme Court did the right thing by removing many wetlands and intermittent streams and lakes from the protections of the Clean Water Act. I disagree. I think those protections are needed to protect our water supplies and our environment and wildlife habitat. Farmers and ranchers need those protections for their livelihoods. But I want to be absolutely clear, that I will not support expanding Federal authority in this area beyond what it was before 2001.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter of support be printed in the Record.