Floor Statements

Mr. President, I just spent a week at home listening to Oregonians describe their concerns, virtually all of which include the word ``bill.'' As we have heard today on the Senate floor, it is sure to be ``gasoline bill.'' But it might also be ``medical bill'' or ``food bill'' or ``credit card bill'' or ``tuition bill'' or ``tax bill'' or ``housing bill.'' Taken together, it is obvious these bills are hitting millions of our people like a wrecking ball.

In addition, millions more Americans see themselves walking an economic tightrope. For example, many of our

people try each month to pay off the interest on their maxed-out credit card while still paying those huge and skyrocketing gasoline bills. Our people are deeply worried that the cost of paying for essentials is just going to keep soaring and they are going to fall off the economic tightrope I have described into a no-man's land where they cannot support themselves or their families.

On Independence Day, I was in Canyonville, OR, to speak at a wonderful supper honoring veterans that was organized by the Cow Creek Band of the Umpqua Tribe of Indians. In my talk, I reflected on how important it is for Americans to be independent of foreign oil, independent of those crushing and escalating medical bills, and independent of the economic insecurity that has kept so many unemployed for months and months.

After my talk, a veteran stopped me and said: Just do what is right for the country. Forget the politics. Country first. That, of course, is what our veterans have always done: country first. Do what is right. Never forget. That is what makes America so special.

I do not have enough time to outline a prescription for all of the economic challenges our country faces that involve solutions built on that veteran's prescription of country first. I do want to report that we have heard what that veteran has said with respect to health care and fixing health care in the Senate.

Sixteen of us in the Senate--eight Democrats and eight Republicans-- have now come together behind legislation to rein in health care costs while providing quality care to all our people. With Senator Bennett from the other side of the aisle in the lead for Republicans, we hold down health care costs by ensuring all our people are part of a large pool so they have more bargaining power in the marketplace.

We institute insurance reforms so it is not possible to discriminate against someone who has been ill. We lower the administrative costs of covering health services. We reform the Tax Code to take away the tax breaks for the Cadillac health care plans and use those dollars for middle and lower middle income folks who are hurting. We have written into our proposal the opportunity for employers who want to keep offering health coverage and for workers who want to take that coverage to always be able to do so. But we also offer to both employers and employees more choices, more alternatives to hold down costs because today, for too many employers and too many workers, there are no alternatives to these 15-, 20-, and 25-percent rate hikes we are seeing again and again across this country.

What our bipartisan group of 16 Senators does is, we modernize our health care system because in many respects some of the key features of our health care system in 2008 are not very different than those of 1948. Back in 1948, when there were wage and price controls, people would go to work somewhere for 30 years or so until you gave them a big steak retirement dinner and a gold watch. Today, the typical worker changes their job seven times by the time they are 35, and employers are having difficulty competing in global markets. That was one of the considerations in the Boeing-Airbus competition, that Boeing paid a lot more for health care than did Airbus.

Our group of 16 Senators has been able to get a favorable review of our proposal by the Congressional Budget Office, the agency that keeps track of the financial underpinnings of major proposals. They have found that our proposal is revenue neutral in the short term, so it will not take big tax hikes on middle-income people to fix health care. They found in the third year, as a result of what we do to change the incentives, change behavior, we actually start holding down the rate of growth in health care, and we start generating a surplus for the Federal Government.

Now, we understand as part of this legislation that both political parties have had valuable contributions to make with respect to the cause of fixing health care. Democrats have been right on the coverage issue because unless you cover everyone, those who are uninsured shift their bills to the insured and costs continue to soar. But those on the other side of the aisle have made a great contribution in terms of saying we must not discourage innovation; we must not discourage the availability of choices. There needs to be a role for the private sector.

So what our group of 16 Senators has said--and I note the presence of Senator Specter on the Senate floor. He has been an extraordinary advocate of improved health care services, and he and I have had many discussions on this topic and will have many more in the days ahead.

I close simply by saying, what our group of 16 Senators--this is the first time in the history of the Senate, going back 60 years to Harry Truman, where there has been a significant bipartisan group of Senators in favor of universal coverage--what our guiding principle has been in this effort, on a topic this big and this complicated--and it surely will go through a host of modifications and changes. In my committee, I intend to work very closely with Chairman Baucus and Senator Grassley, two great leaders who work in a bipartisan fashion. We are going to have to work in a bipartisan fashion to fix American health care.

But given that litany of concerns I have described, with six or seven top issues being ones where the second word is ``bill,'' starting with ``gasoline bill''--we have to come together on a bipartisan basis to deal with those concerns. That is what Senator Bennett and I have sought to do as part of our health care legislation. That is what we are going to have to do to tackle the premier economic issues of our time.

As that veteran said to me just a couple of nights ago in Canyonville, OR, putting country first is what public service and public service in the Senate is all about.

Mr. President, with that, I yield the floor.

Madam President, soon the Senate will take up the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. It, of course, is known as FISA. FISA may not be a household word to most Americans, but a properly written FISA reauthorization is exceptionally important to the well-being of our country and it needs to meet a simple test: It must allow our country to fight terrorism ferociously and still protect our individual liberty.

I do not know how many Senators have traveled to the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue to personally read the legal opinions from the Department of Justice on the warrantless wiretapping program that is at the center of this debate. Someday these opinions are going to become public. Someday the American people will see how flimsy the legal reasoning is behind warrantless wiretapping. Someday the American people will see the damage that is done to our Nation when the executive branch tries to rewrite important national security law in secret.

The warrantless wiretapping program is not the first of this administration's counterterrorism programs that is built on legal quicksand. We have seen the coercive interrogation program, and the detention program at Guantanamo. Again and again on these vital counterterrorism programs, the administration has overreached, it has fallen short, and then it has come to the Congress and asked that the Congress clean up these legal messes. I am especially troubled by the provisions in this reauthorization of the FISA bill that grant blanket retroactive immunity to any telecommunications company that participated in the warrantless wiretapping program. I want to spend a few minutes to unpack this issue and discuss why I think it is such a significant mistake to reauthorize the program in this fashion and to have what amounts to a blanket amnesty provision for those who may have been involved in illegal activity.

Many have argued that companies that were asked to participate in the warrantless wiretapping program should be treated leniently since they acted during a state of national panic and confusion. I have given this argument a lot of thought and, frankly, I think there is a valid rationale behind that thinking if you are talking about a short period of time. But that is not what is being discussed here. The warrantless wiretapping program did not last for a few weeks or a few months as America worried about the prospect of another attack. It went on for nearly 6 years. At some point during that nearly 6-year period, any company participating in the program had an obligation to stop and to consider whether what they were doing was legal.

Others have suggested that if you do not give amnesty to the companies now, it is going to be impossible to get

cooperation from other companies in the future in the fight against terrorism. I do not buy that argument. Our country is full of patriotic citizens and businesses that are eager to do their part and to serve their Nation. I will say, I think it is insulting to suggest that American businessmen and women will be less patriotic if the Congress does not grant amnesty to the phone companies. People of this country love our Nation, and I believe they step up, they come forward whenever they can.

I hope, however, that they are not going to say: Well, okay, when the Government breaks the law we will automatically step forward in those instances. When American businesses are asked to participate in a program that looks as if it could be illegal, we all say, that is the time to hold on. I think it is important, particularly for our major businesses, to follow the law and not just the words of the President. I am disappointed that this legislation includes this amnesty provision. I hope as colleagues continue to examine the bill, they understand what is at issue.

If the legislation passes, the Attorney General will be able to stop any of the lawsuits against the companies dead in their tracks. All the Attorney General will have to do is tell the judges considering these cases that any corporation that participated in the program was told by the Government that what they were doing was legal. They will not have to actually prove it was legal, they will not have to provide any evidence, they will not have to cite any statutes, they will not have to make any legal arguments whatsoever.

In my view, this amounts to self-certification. Self-certification runs counter to the whole idea of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in the first place. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is based on the notion that the way to keep classified intelligence activities from intruding on Americans' privacy is to make sure there is a significant measure of independent judicial oversight. The judges in this situation will be allowed to examine as many documents as they like. But, in this instance, they will not actually be allowed to exercise independent judgment at all. As long as they see a piece of paper, a piece of paper that gets held up from a few years ago, a Presidential permission slip, if you will, that claims the program is legal, they will be required to grant immunity to the phone companies. Even the distinguished leader in the House, the minority whip, has acknowledged that this would be a mere ``formality.''

The concept of independent oversight that is so central to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and that has worked so well in practice simply, in my view, should not be transformed into an approach that effectively permits the administration to self-certify with respect to these particular cases.

I want to be clear that I cannot begin to divine how various matters in litigation will come out. In addition to the constitutional issues that are at stake, there is a number of contentious matters regarding standing, injury, a host of very difficult legal problems involved. I think the judges in these cases will need to consider all of the issues if the cases go forward. That is what makes the judicial process in the original statute so important. It is independent. They look at all of the factors that are relevant. But I will say that I did not think the Congress or I should substitute our judgment for the judgment of the courts, and that is, in effect, what happens if the legislation goes forward as written and blanket immunity is granted to every company that participated in the program.

It saddens me to have to oppose the legislation as written. I do so knowing that the bill contains a number of very important provisions and, with respect to individual liberty and the rights of our people, contains some significant steps forward. I am especially grateful to Senators Rockefeller and Bond for working very closely with me to ensure that Americans who travel overseas don't lose their rights when they leave America's shores. That is the status today, regrettably. In this area, Senators Rockefeller, Bond, myself, Whitehouse, Feingold, a number of us who serve on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence worked in a constructive, good-faith way with the Bush administration. In this legislation, we have put into law that in the digital age, your rights are going to travel with you. You don't lose your rights. If you are a serviceman from the State of Missouri or a businessperson from another part of the country, you won't lose your rights when you leave American soil. That is as it should be. It is a significant expansion of the individual liberties of our citizens. They should not give up their rights when they travel. They ought to have rights that do travel in a world with modern communications and modern transportation. That provision is part of this reauthorization.

However, I feel so strongly about the ill-advised nature of the provisions that provide for blanket amnesty that I must oppose this bill as written. I think when history looks back at what happened, the warrantless wiretapping program, they are going to say that this program, along with several other flawed counterterrorism programs that have come from this administration, was a mistake. We should not compound those mistakes by reauthorizing this legislation that contains a blanket grant of immunity at a time when Americans understand that it is possible to fight terrorism relentlessly, fight terrorism ferociously without trashing our rights and liberties simultaneously.

We can do better. The Senate will have an opportunity to do better. A number of colleagues are going to be advocating proposals to strip the legislation of the amnesty provision. I hope those provisions will be successful.

I would like to pass this bill when we have an opportunity to strike a better balance between fighting terrorism aggressively and protecting the liberties of our citizens.

With that, I yield the floor.

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

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

Mr. President, today, I am honoring a commitment and submitting for public review a proposal to protect old-growth forests and to aggressively move to restore, through thinning, the millions of acres of at-risk forests across the State of Oregon.

The novelist Ellen Glasgow once remarked:

The only difference between a rut and a grave is their

dimensions.

We find ourselves today in a decades-old rut that threatens our forests and our lives like never before. It is time for change for Oregon forests, and that change can only begin with new ideas--ideas that depart radically from recent decades of forest mismanagement, old- growth destruction, catastrophic fire, and political gamesmanship.

We must break this cycle of endless fighting, of old, unwinnable battles in the woods that now endanger our forests and communities alike. We must make the preparations now to move forward, under new national leadership in 2009, to restore our treasured and endangered forests with sustainable, ecologically beneficial restoration thinning while permanently protecting the few remaining old-growth forests we have left.

We ought to be creating new and sustainable jobs in forestry for now and for the future and finally achieve the economic and ecological promise of the Northwest Forest Plan. It is my view that it is critical to change the mindset of Federal land management bureaucracies by requiring large-scale efforts to address the obscene backlog of at-risk forests and by restoring the tools and the public trust required to accomplish these jobs. In short, we must change the way the Federal Government manages forests, and especially Oregon's forests.

I am hopeful my proposal--driven by science and the will of the people of Oregon to end the destruction of old growth and to restore our at-risk forests through sustainable thinning--can help begin a new dialog that leads to change that is so desperately needed.

So I invite all Oregonians to review my proposal and to share their thoughts at my Web site: www.wyden.senate.gov. My staff and I will review those comments and seek to improve upon it before it is formally introduced as legislation in the Senate.

Our forests are the foundation of our natural, historical, and sociological culture. Unfortunately, decades of scientifically unsound forest management have created dangerous risks that now threaten our forests and our cultural identity.

Instead of making progress on the huge backlog of priority management projects that could restore our forests, Presidentially imposed political agendas have taken precedence, for well over a decade now, over commonsense opportunities to move forward to an

ecologically sound, economically advantageous, and sustainable forest future.

Scientifically unsupportable agendas and the resulting cycle of mistrust, litigation, and institutional paralysis now threaten vast tracts of Oregon's forest land and especially what remains of Oregon's ancient forests.

The Federal Government owns more than half of my State. That probably is a little bit different than it is in Rhode Island, but it is the case, and most of it is forest land. Due to decades of poorly designed, even-aged management and fire suppression, we have millions of acres of choked, second-growth forest at an unacceptably high risk for disease, catastrophic fires, and insect infestation. Fire, disease, and infestation certainly don't respect geographic boundaries, but they sure present a severe risk to private landowners and communities alike.

In 2008, at our Oregon Economic Summit in Portland, I announced that I will begin work on a proposal to address the bureaucratic and political roadblocks that prevent restoring millions of acres of choked, second-growth plantations in moist west side forests and the many at-risk dry forests, particularly found in the eastern and southern part of my State. I said I would work to avoid a return of the counterproductive and senseless forest battles of the past several decades--battles fought over logging in old growth and environmentally sensitive forests, areas which tend to be far more fire resistant and play a critical role in water quality and species protection.

Today, I am honoring the commitment I made to the people of Oregon, and I intend to use my chairmanship of the Senate Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests to attempt to bring my home State the changes that our forests so desperately need.

The guiding premise of my proposal is to direct and help the Federal land agencies move forward quickly with local input on what should be the most critical, least controversial objectives to restoring our Federal forests in Oregon and to move those agencies away from practices that have been widely discredited and are not supported by the public.

In short, my proposal expedites restoration of Oregon's forests by thinning the millions of acres of choked plantations and dry, at-risk forests that pose a risk to lives, forests, and property. It also attempts to begin the task of restoring public trust in Federal land management agencies by permanently ending the commercial logging of Oregon's old growth forests. Forest Service and BLM managers in my State would be given new direction based on the principles of restoration forestry. Overstocked stands that I have been referring to and stands unhealthy due to a lack of age or species diversity would become the focus of this proposal. The managers would be instructed to avoid all old growth and inventoried roadless areas and incorporate a comprehensive aquatic conservation strategy into all projects. Activities conducted under this new management direction would receive expedited administrative procedures and limits on administrative appeals because they would then be focusing on critical priorities in the noncontroversial areas.

This proposal further works to restore the trust of the public in our Federal land agencies by giving those agencies an incentive to pursue new, sustainable forest management directives and to create the first ever automatic, independent review of the agencies' forest management actions, as well as new openness, transparency, and accountability for the actions by these agencies.

The overwhelming body of scientific evidence assigns a negative ecological value to the cutting down of Oregon's remaining old growth forests. Science has demonstrated time and time again that old and mature trees play an indispensable role in preserving water quality for communities, preserving critical wildlife habitat, and storing the carbon gases that contribute to global warming. Further, the evidence shows that those older trees are far more resistant to fire than younger trees. Equally important, after the disappearance of over 90 percent of Oregon's old growth, the people of my State no longer support the cutting of what little old growth remains on our public lands.

In the drier forests found predominantly, but not exclusively, on the east side of Oregon, the old growth picture is a bit more complicated due to decades of questionable management. Many scientists and environmentalists agree that more active forest management will have to be pursued quickly on the east side forests if there is going to be a genuine effort to save the native older trees and restore a healthy, diverse, and more fire-resistant mix to forests currently under a relentless and devastating assault by fire, disease, and insects.

For these reasons, I propose a permanent protection from logging for all remaining old growth and mature trees in Oregon's Federal forests. In the mostly west side ``moist'' forests, no tree currently 120 years or older would be allowed to be cut ever again for commercial purposes. In the drier forests, no tree currently 150 years or older would be allowed to ever again be cut for commercial purposes. The decades-old debate over the fate of old growth in Oregon would finally come to an end.

This is a crisis which cries out for action across the millions of acres of choked, at-risk forests in our State, and reasonable people on both sides of the forestry issue need to come together so that we get fresh policies and Oregon doesn't suffer foolishly and needlessly lose more forests, property, and lives.

What I propose today is to shift the focus of our Federal land agencies off of logging old growth and other environmentally sensitive areas and on to addressing the horrific backlog of desperately needed restoration thinning in the Federal forests. This involves harvesting ground and ladder fuels in areas that ought to be considered noncontroversial, fuels that currently endanger old growth in other healthy forests--Federal, State, and private alike--as well as endangering human and animal life. The new required management focus will also allow for the economic potential of the Northwest Forest Plan to be secured.

This proposal envisions that in many cases it is going to be possible to achieve the goals I have set out by bringing about collaboration from timber industry groups and environmental leaders. I have already seen great collaborative successes like this in the Siuslaw, Colville, and other national forests, with the help of organizations such as Oregon Wild, the Nature Conservancy, and K-S Wild. My proposal creates incentives for these partnerships, but due to the enormous and dangerous backlog of work, it is my view that collaborative efforts such as these must be stepped up; they must come at an accelerated pace.

Unfortunately, history has shown that it is not possible to rely just on good will, and that is especially the case if you don't find a way to discourage the cycle of endless administrative appeals and litigation that has produced Federal agency inertia and undermined even the most commonsense management efforts in our forests.

Under my proposal, each Oregon Federal forest and BLM district would be empowered to create a landscape-level restoration project of up to 25,000 acres designed by local collaboration organizations. If collaboration is not achieved, the land agency would be allowed to go forward but on a smaller scale of up to 10,000 acres.

One of the reasons there have been endless appeals and litigation is that over the past several decades, the level of public trust of Federal public land agencies has fallen to such unhealthy levels that it is impossible to conduct even routine and commonsense forest management projects. An era of mistrust of these agencies and the accompanying legacy of public protests, appeals, and litigation have produced what I consider to be an institutional paralysis in these land agencies, and it must be reversed. To begin to restore public trust and empower the land agencies to move forward aggressively, I believe the proposal I offer today will bring an unprecedented level of scrutiny, transparency, and accountability to the forest projects that are conducted under the new authorities I propose.

I borrow in this regard from a model that has been used by fisheries regulated by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency that employ observers to monitor the bycatch of fish.

Under my proposal, independent forest observers hired and managed by the independent inspectors general of the Agriculture and Interior Departments, who will monitor all of the projects that are conducted under the proposal I offer today to make sure the prohibitions against cutting old growth and mature trees, and cutting trees in roadless areas--that those protections are strictly observed. The forest observer reports will be made available to the public online, and Federal forests found violating the Federal protections would lose their ability to provide expedited project authorities for several years as a penalty.

Finally, for the sake of our environment, economy, and our way of life, my hope is that an approach such as I offer today is going to make it possible to create thousands of new jobs and restore the health of our forests. The only way to produce this kind of change is to put new ideas forward, bold ideas that break out of the old rut that has produced so much institutional paralysis, and move to an approach that protects our forests, protects our communities, and protects a new opportunity to create family wage employment.

I am certain there are many additional issues Oregonians are going to want to consider and suggestions they will have to improve this proposal. I wish to make it clear that starting today, with this proposal online, I invite and welcome the people of Oregon to weigh in so that it will be possible, at the end of their opportunity to be heard and offer their suggestions, to go forward with a concrete, specific proposal to break bold, new ground with respect to forestry and provide the changes the public so desperately desires.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, on April 18, I announced my intention to object to any unanimous-consent request for the Senate to take up the nomination of Harvey E. Johnson who has been nominated by President Bush to serve as Deputy Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. I did so because, prior to his confirmation as Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff told me in my office that if confirmed he would move expeditiously to implement the National Emergency Technology Guard--NET Guard--program. Unfortunately, Secretary Chertoff had failed to honor that pledge.

However, I am pleased to say that this morning the Department of Homeland Security has finally issued a solicitation for applications for a NET Guard pilot program, effectively beginning the implementation process. It is years late, but at last the Department is moving forward with this critical program.

In light of this action, I will no longer object to any unanimous- consent request for the Senate to take up Mr. Johnson's nomination. I will, however, continue to closely monitor DHS's actions on NET Guard.

I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the Department of Homeland Security's press release announcing the pilot program be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, I wish to acknowledge the important work of my Oregon colleagues--Representatives DeFazio, Hooley, Blumenauer, and Wu--who are coming through today for an Oregon icon, our special Mount Hood. Last year, Senator Smith and I introduced the Lewis and Clark Mount Hood Wilderness Act to create an additional 128,000 acres of wilderness around the mountain. Our Mount Hood legislation has passed committee, and I am confident that now, with the House of Representatives, the other body, going forward with a companion measure, it is going to be possible to get this measure enacted and move on to a host of additional important land issues for my home State.

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

Mr. President, there is a celebration today of the 40th anniversary of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. I want to acknowledge that important occasion by announcing two bills I am proposing today that will expand protection for some of Oregon's most special places and will lock in their preservation for generations to come.

The first bill is the Oregon Caves National Monument Boundary Adjustment Act, which will secure protection for a stunning piece of Oregon that includes natural treasures both above and below the ground at the Oregon Caves. The 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. With the bill I am introducing today, we will be creating the first subterranean wild and scenic river, a perennial stream at the monument known as the River Styx. This river is an underground portion of Cave Creek that flows through part of the cave and is one of the dynamic natural forces at work in the national monument.

The National Park Service has formally proposed a boundary modification for the Oregon Caves National Monument many times. They did it first in 1939. They did it again in 1949 and most recently in 2000. Today, I am happy to propose legislation to enact that boundary adjustment into law. I was born in 1949. It seems to me that after this effort has gone on literally for decades, it is time to secure this protection for generations to come. I want to make sure the new Wyden twins, William Peter and Ava Rose, are going to enjoy it with millions of Oregonians. That is why it is important that this action be taken and taken quickly.

Expanding this boundary will allow us to further protect the stunning majesty of both the underground and the above-ground treasures found at this national monument.

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, insects, spiders, etc., found only in the Oregon Caves and nowhere else. The caves possess a significant collection of Pleistocene-aged fossils, including jaguar and grizzly bear. Grizzly bones that were found in the cave in 1995 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 of the resources associated with Oregon Caves National Monument and increase public recreation opportunities by adding surrounding lands to the monument. My bill would expand the monument boundary by 4,084 acres to include the entire Cave Creek Watershed, management of which would be transferred from the United States Forest Service to the National Park Service. 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 provide authorization for 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 is insufficient to 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 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 is the second smallest unit of the National Park System. A larger monument boundary will help showcase more fully the recreational opportunities on the above-ground lands within the proposed monument boundary. In addition to the numerous subsurface resources, 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 extensive biological diversity stems from the unique geology of the region and the range of temperatures, fire regimes, and climates found in the area that create a region rich in endemic plants, fish-bearing streams, and the most varied conifer forest on the planet. 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. Water quality has been a major concern and the activities on the adjacent lands can affect the water quality and the caves' precious resources. 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. The current grazing permitee, Phil Krouse's family, has had the Big Grayback Grazing Allotment, 19,703 acres, since 1937. 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. Mr. Krouse has publicly stated that he would look favorably upon retirement with private compensation for his allotment, such as my legislation will allow to proceed.

I want to express my thanks to all the volunteers and supporters in the local business and conservation community in Southern Oregon, to Phil Krouse for his commitment to Oregon's natural resources, and to Craig Ackerman, the former Superintendent of the Oregon Caves National Monument. My colleagues in the House of Representatives, Representatives DeFazio, Hooley, Blumenauer and Wu will be introducing companion legislation in the House today and I look forward to working with them to advance this legislation.

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

Mr. President, the second piece of legislation I introduce today is the Lower Rogue Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. The Rogue River is a much beloved piece of Oregon's beautiful landscape. This bill will protect the waters that feed it.

Protecting the wild and scenic tributaries to the Rogue River is a critical step in protecting the backbone of one of Oregon's most important sport and commercial fisheries. In 2008, the American Rivers Organization named the Rogue and its tributaries as the second most endangered river in our country. I am hoping to change that today by introducing this legislation which would protect 143 miles of wild and scenic tributaries that feed the Rogue River with cold, clean water.

The Rogue River is one of our Nation's premier recreation destinations, famous for its free flowing waters which provide numerous rafting and fishing opportunities. 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 United States. The Rogue River is home to runs of coho, spring and fall chinook, winter and summer steelhead--and it has the special distinction of being one of only several 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 a critical step in 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 this river and its tributaries. My proposal would 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 will seek to protect the Rogue River for future generations so they can enjoy the Rogue River as we do today. My colleagues in the House of Representatives, Representatives DeFazio, Hooley, Blumenauer and Wu will be introducing companion legislation in the House today. I want to express my thanks to the conservation and business communities of Southern Oregon, who have worked diligently to protect these waters and enable the outdoor recreationists to use and enjoy these rivers. I look forward to working with my House colleagues and the bill's other supporters to advance our 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, there is a celebration today of the 40th anniversary of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. I want to acknowledge that important occasion by announcing two bills I am proposing today that will expand protection for some of Oregon's most special places and will lock in their preservation for generations to come.

The first bill is the Oregon Caves National Monument Boundary Adjustment Act, which will secure protection for a stunning piece of Oregon that includes natural treasures both above and below the ground at the Oregon Caves. The 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. With the bill I am introducing today, we will be creating the first subterranean wild and scenic river, a perennial stream at the monument known as the River Styx. This river is an underground portion of Cave Creek that flows through part of the cave and is one of the dynamic natural forces at work in the national monument.

The National Park Service has formally proposed a boundary modification for the Oregon Caves National Monument many times. They did it first in 1939. They did it again in 1949 and most recently in 2000. Today, I am happy to propose legislation to enact that boundary adjustment into law. I was born in 1949. It seems to me that after this effort has gone on literally for decades, it is time to secure this protection for generations to come. I want to make sure the new Wyden twins, William Peter and Ava Rose, are going to enjoy it with millions of Oregonians. That is why it is important that this action be taken and taken quickly.

Expanding this boundary will allow us to further protect the stunning majesty of both the underground and the above-ground treasures found at this national monument.

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, insects, spiders, etc., found only in the Oregon Caves and nowhere else. The caves possess a significant collection of Pleistocene-aged fossils, including jaguar and grizzly bear. Grizzly bones that were found in the cave in 1995 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 of the resources associated with Oregon Caves National Monument and increase public recreation opportunities by adding surrounding lands to the monument. My bill would expand the monument boundary by 4,084 acres to include the entire Cave Creek Watershed, management of which would be transferred from the United States Forest Service to the National Park Service. 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 provide authorization for 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 is insufficient to 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 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 is the second smallest unit of the National Park System. A larger monument boundary will help showcase more fully the recreational opportunities on the above-ground lands within the proposed monument boundary. In addition to the numerous subsurface resources, 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 extensive biological diversity stems from the unique geology of the region and the range of temperatures, fire regimes, and climates found in the area that create a region rich in endemic plants, fish-bearing streams, and the most varied conifer forest on the planet. 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. Water quality has been a major concern and the activities on the adjacent lands can affect the water quality and the caves' precious resources. 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. The current grazing permitee, Phil Krouse's family, has had the Big Grayback Grazing Allotment, 19,703 acres, since 1937. 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. Mr. Krouse has publicly stated that he would look favorably upon retirement with private compensation for his allotment, such as my legislation will allow to proceed.

I want to express my thanks to all the volunteers and supporters in the local business and conservation community in Southern Oregon, to Phil Krouse for his commitment to Oregon's natural resources, and to Craig Ackerman, the former Superintendent of the Oregon Caves National Monument. My colleagues in the House of Representatives, Representatives DeFazio, Hooley, Blumenauer and Wu will be introducing companion legislation in the House today and I look forward to working with them to advance this legislation.

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

Mr. President, the second piece of legislation I introduce today is the Lower Rogue Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. The Rogue River is a much beloved piece of Oregon's beautiful landscape. This bill will protect the waters that feed it.

Protecting the wild and scenic tributaries to the Rogue River is a critical step in protecting the backbone of one of Oregon's most important sport and commercial fisheries. In 2008, the American Rivers Organization named the Rogue and its tributaries as the second most endangered river in our country. I am hoping to change that today by introducing this legislation which would protect 143 miles of wild and scenic tributaries that feed the Rogue River with cold, clean water.

The Rogue River is one of our Nation's premier recreation destinations, famous for its free flowing waters which provide numerous rafting and fishing opportunities. 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 United States. The Rogue River is home to runs of coho, spring and fall chinook, winter and summer steelhead--and it has the special distinction of being one of only several 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 a critical step in 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 this river and its tributaries. My proposal would 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 will seek to protect the Rogue River for future generations so they can enjoy the Rogue River as we do today. My colleagues in the House of Representatives, Representatives DeFazio, Hooley, Blumenauer and Wu will be introducing companion legislation in the House today. I want to express my thanks to the conservation and business communities of Southern Oregon, who have worked diligently to protect these waters and enable the outdoor recreationists to use and enjoy these rivers. I look forward to working with my House colleagues and the bill's other supporters to advance our legislation to the President's desk.

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

I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 15 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. President, before he leaves the floor, let me thank my good friend from Colorado, Senator Salazar, for his kind and gracious comments about the Healthy Americans Act. He has been a wonderful addition to the Senate Finance Committee. I know we are going to be spending a lot of time trying to deal with these important challenges in the days ahead. I thank him for all his thoughtfulness, both today and on a regular basis.

Every day from coast to coast, millions of our seniors look at Medicare as a lifeline. These are the seniors who walk on an economic tightrope, balancing their fuel bills against their food costs and their food costs against their prescription costs. They are just trying not to fall off the economic tightrope. As the distinguished Senator from Missouri has pointed out, when you look at these skyrocketing gas and fuel prices over the last few months, that is enough to send seniors trembling about the prospect of being able to pay for necessities every month.

This legislation is a substantial step in the right direction of major health reform. It is not everything that needs to be done. As Senator Salazar has noted, I and others are working with seven Democrats and seven Republicans on what we think is a comprehensive overhaul of American health care system. But, clearly, this legislation moves in the right direction. I want to touch on three areas--the question of physician reimbursement; protections for low-income people; and then, finally, marketing practices--to highlight the fact that this legislation, which I hope the Senate is going to vote to move along tomorrow, clearly makes changes that will be helpful for older people today, but also will pay dividends for the broader course of health reform in the future.

First, with respect to this question of trying to ensure a step forward with respect to physician reimbursement--all over this country, we have physicians in small practices who are literally having trouble keeping the doors open. They can have a couple of people in their office and spend virtually the whole day trying to pry out of insurance companies information from their insurance matrix about what they are going to pay for various services. Literally, these physicians are not going to be able to keep their doors open if Medicare physician payments are cut by more than 10 percent.

So this is not an issue of somehow protecting fat-cat doctors or those who are affluent in our society. This is a question of protecting primary care and primary care for the most vulnerable people in our society. I am of the view that if this cut were allowed to go forward on July 1, it would be a body blow to the older people of this country, those millions who are walking on an economic tightrope.

I commend Chairman Baucus and Senator Snowe and the whole group on the Finance Committee who are trying to move this forward. I hope we will do that tomorrow.

Second, I believe the protections for the low-income older people are another step in the right direction. This legislation increases the amount of resources that Medicare beneficiaries can have and still qualify for the Medicare Savings Program. So what that does is it helps older people fill in the gaps in their coverage. The provision, also with respect to low-income people, adds money to boost the State Health Insurance Assistance Programs and the Area Agencies on Aging that are enrolling low-income older people in assistance programs.

So those are the first two provisions that I think make a real difference for older people: the expansion with respect to services they would get from doctors if the reimbursement goes up, particularly in terms of primary care services for older people; and, second, the additional protections for the low-income Medicare beneficiaries.

But what I wish to highlight this afternoon is the additional protection in the Baucus-Snowe legislation against abusive marketing practices.

I will tell the Presiding Officer and colleagues, when I came to the Congress many years ago, in the days when I had a full head of hair and rugged good looks, it was pretty common for an older person to have a shoe box full of health insurance policies, and a lot of them were not worth the paper they were written on. They would be wasting money on these health insurance policies that they ought to be using on food and fuel and essentials.

So in the early 1990s, we got a law passed; and we changed that. It was a law to reform what was known as the Medigap market--the market for policies sold to supplement Medicare. It has worked. It has standardized the market. It has been good for old people. It has been good for responsible insurance companies. It worked.

But what happened? After the Medicare prescription drug program went in, we saw once again some people in the private insurance sector-- certainly not a majority, but some--say: Boy, here is another wonderful opportunity to make some fast money. We have seen some horrendously abusive practices in this area, particularly through a product that is known as Medicare private fee-for-service. That has been the area where, in effect, you do not even have the protections you would have in Arkansas, say, if an older person had an HMO, a health maintenance organization, plan or another.

These programs exist outside the oversight and the scrutiny we ought to have for the protection of older people. And sitting next to the distinguished Senator from Arkansas on the Finance Committee, Mrs. Lincoln, we have heard in our committee about these abuses on a regular basis.

I also point out that Chairman Kohl, the distinguished chairman of the Aging Committee, had some superb hearings which pointed out exactly the same practices: how you saw older people being victimized by cold calling arrangements and door-to-door sales activities. These agents would be swooping in to apartment buildings and senior living facilities, basically trying to get people into events where there would be a free meal, or calling it an educational program, and all of a sudden they would be selling these products that were not worth a whole lot more than the paper they were written on.

So, in effect, what we saw in the last few years--it is a different product--but Medicare Advantage was going the same way we saw some of those Medigap programs going in the 1980s, which we eventually fixed.

It is important for Senators to note when they vote tomorrow on moving this Medicare legislation ahead that Chairman Baucus and Senator Snowe, with the excellent work done by Chairman Kohl in the Aging Committee, are taking a real step in the right direction to protecting seniors from these marketing abuses.

This bill would require the agents and brokers to set the scope of any sales appointment when they are setting it up. It would require inclusion of the plan type in the particular program. What happens now is it is hard for people to even figure out what type of plan is being discussed because there has not been the kind of openness and disclosure of those particular provisions.

There also would have to be training for those agents and brokers who are selling Medicare Advantage in what has come to be known as Part D so they would be out in the marketplace in a position to answer the questions of older people.

Also--and I thought this was a particularly important benefit in the Baucus-Snowe legislation--agents and brokers would have to be licensed and appointed as required by State law. We saw this in both the Baucus hearings and the Kohl hearings, that the lack of that requirement was a serious deficiency in terms of consumer protection.

I hope tomorrow the Senate will move forward on this Medicare legislation. I think without the additional assistance, particularly for doctors in the primary care field, it will reduce access to older people. We need the protections, the low-income protections I

have outlined. And, finally, we need the protections for older people in terms of ensuring we do not have these flagrant, outrageous cases of marketing abuses that take us back to the 1980s, when a lot of us thought we had gotten rid of that kind of fly-by-night flimflam rip-off of older people.

The last point I want to mention--I know the distinguished Presiding Officer has been kind to talk to me about this in the past--is I think we need to pass this legislation as a foundation for the broader health reform effort that is going to take place next year. In other words, it is going to be pretty hard to go on to broader health care reform if we see physicians clobbered this year and that cutback in reimbursement goes into effect.

If you have physicians cut 10 percent, and we lose a lot of physicians in primary care, it is going to be pretty hard next year when we have a new President and bipartisan interest in the Senate to go on to broader health reform.

I think we have an opportunity with respect to comprehensive health reform that we have never had here in the Senate. For the first time in the history of the Senate, we have 14 Senators--7 Democrats and 7 Republicans--willing to work in a bipartisan way. For the first time, the people who keep the budget numbers, the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation, say that the numbers add up for comprehensive reform, that we can do it in a budget-neutral fashion. In fact, they say in the third year of an effort it would actually start generating some surpluses for the Federal Government.

So there is a lot to work with, particularly when we get Senator Kennedy back here, and he is going to be the champion of our effort. I think we can move forward with comprehensive reform, and do it in a bipartisan way. But to move forward next year with comprehensive health reform, we cannot make mistakes in this session of the Senate.

It would be a huge mistake, for example, to let this physician cutback go through that is going to harm primary care. It would be a huge mistake not to have the protections for marketing abuses, not to protect the low-income older people.

We can pass this legislation. I hope we will do it in a resounding fashion in the Senate, starting tomorrow with the important procedural vote.

I close by saying, we ought to do it now. We ought to do it at this time because it will help seniors for the future but also because I think it will lay an important foundation for bipartisan health reform in the next year of the Senate.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce two bills to protect two unique places in the high desert of Central and Eastern Oregon as wilderness. These areas both reflect the wild, rugged beauty that makes Oregon's terrain east of the Cascade Mountains so incomparable.

The first bill I am introducing, the Oregon Badlands Wilderness Act of 2008, S. 3088, would designate as wilderness almost 30,000 acres of the area known as the Badlands. The Badlands consists of high desert that is located just 15 miles east of Bend, Oregon, and straddles the Deschutes-Crook county border. The Badlands is made up of pockets of soft sand, lichen-covered lava flows and 1,000-year-old ancient junipers. It is home to pronghorn, deer, and elk.

The effort to protect the Badlands was led by a Bend schoolteacher, Alice Elshoff, in the 1980s. According to an article about Ms. Elshoff's efforts, ``Huge chunks of basalt rock jut out of the soft desert sand like blisters that burst from within the earth. Twisted juniper trees, some hundreds of years old, seem to desperately cling to the jagged rock formations. And beneath the trees and nearly hidden in narrow hideaways among the rocks are faint red drawings, messages left by prehistoric Indians who called this rugged part of the world home. This is the Badlands.''

In addition to its natural attributes, many Bend business leaders understand that an Oregon Badlands Wilderness adds to the area's national reputation as a hub for diverse outdoor recreation. In the Bend area, people can enjoy almost any outdoor activity--boating, biking, skiing, horseback riding, hunting, riding off-road vehicles and hiking. Within roughly an hour's drive of Bend, there are more than 400,000 acres of public lands available to motorized recreation--and I look forward to continuing to work with the Central Oregon off road and snowmobile communities. The region's diverse recreational options are a true example of multiple use. Into that mix we now add the peace and solitude of a wilderness recreation experience. These kinds of diverse recreational opportunities and scenic natural areas are part of what has attracted companies and new residents to the Bend area and, with them, booming economic development. According to the 2007 article in The Economist entitled ``Booming Bend,'' ``Fabulous scenery attracts people with fabulous amounts of money.'' To sum it up, people seek places to live and work with the kind of high quality of life the Bend area can offer. The natural beauty and recreational opportunities of an area like Bend propel this growth.

The Bend community has been talking about protecting the special place known as the Badlands for many years. Volunteers have been working with long-time Oregon ranchers, notably Bev and Ray Clarno, whose family has worked the land for generations, along with conservationists, irrigators, and more than 200 local businesses to gain protection for the Badlands as wilderness.

This designation is also a tribute to a remarkable young woman, Rachel Scdoris, who grew up driving and training her sled dog team through this area--and the bill provides that she may continue doing so for as long as she chooses. Ms. Scdoris is legally blind, and she recently completed in her third Iditarod sled dog race.

This wilderness designation has been a long time in coming; it has been over two decades since the BLM began reviewing which lands should be considered candidates for wilderness. From that time forward, BLM has repeatedly concluded that the Badlands should be protected as Wilderness. It is time to make it happen. This unique part of the Oregon high desert needs to be permanently protected for generations to come.

The second bill I am introducing is the Spring Basin Wilderness Act of 2008, S. 3089. This region is further east and even more remote than the Badlands. Spring Basin is one of Central Oregon's premier wild areas. Overlooking the John Day Wild and Scenic River, the rolling hills of Spring Basin burst with color during the spring wildflower bloom. It boasts canyons and diverse geology that offers recreational opportunities for hikers, horseback riders, hunters, botanists, and other outdoor enthusiasts. The area is important habitat for populations of Mule Deer and Rocky Mountain Elk, as well as many bird species. To preserve this natural treasure, my bill would designate approximately 8,600 acres as the Spring Basin Wilderness.

During the past several years, many community leaders and adjacent landowners have approached me advocating for Wilderness designation for this spectacular land that borders the Wild and Scenic John Day River and the nearby John Day Fossil Beds. The area is known across Oregon for its profusion of spring wildflowers. The Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs, local landowners, the County Commission and the Federal Bureau of Land Management all support Wilderness designation for Spring Basin. In fact, Spring Basin was recommended to Congress as a wilderness area by the Bureau of Land Management in 1989. Protecting this scenic jewel will add to Oregon's treasured wilderness and the unique recreational opportunities it provides.

I want to express my thanks to all the volunteers and supporters who have worked tirelessly to protect this area and reached out to diverse community groups to build support. I also want to thank the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs for their engagement and support. The Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs own and manage approximately 30,000 acres of adjacent land that they manage to the north and east of Spring Basin. The Tribes manage these lands for the improvement of fish and wildlife habitat and I look forward to working with them to implement this legislation.

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

Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce two bills to protect two unique places in the high desert of Central and Eastern Oregon as wilderness. These areas both reflect the wild, rugged beauty that makes Oregon's terrain east of the Cascade Mountains so incomparable.

The first bill I am introducing, the Oregon Badlands Wilderness Act of 2008, S. 3088, would designate as wilderness almost 30,000 acres of the area known as the Badlands. The Badlands consists of high desert that is located just 15 miles east of Bend, Oregon, and straddles the Deschutes-Crook county border. The Badlands is made up of pockets of soft sand, lichen-covered lava flows and 1,000-year-old ancient junipers. It is home to pronghorn, deer, and elk.

The effort to protect the Badlands was led by a Bend schoolteacher, Alice Elshoff, in the 1980s. According to an article about Ms. Elshoff's efforts, ``Huge chunks of basalt rock jut out of the soft desert sand like blisters that burst from within the earth. Twisted juniper trees, some hundreds of years old, seem to desperately cling to the jagged rock formations. And beneath the trees and nearly hidden in narrow hideaways among the rocks are faint red drawings, messages left by prehistoric Indians who called this rugged part of the world home. This is the Badlands.''

In addition to its natural attributes, many Bend business leaders understand that an Oregon Badlands Wilderness adds to the area's national reputation as a hub for diverse outdoor recreation. In the Bend area, people can enjoy almost any outdoor activity--boating, biking, skiing, horseback riding, hunting, riding off-road vehicles and hiking. Within roughly an hour's drive of Bend, there are more than 400,000 acres of public lands available to motorized recreation--and I look forward to continuing to work with the Central Oregon off road and snowmobile communities. The region's diverse recreational options are a true example of multiple use. Into that mix we now add the peace and solitude of a wilderness recreation experience. These kinds of diverse recreational opportunities and scenic natural areas are part of what has attracted companies and new residents to the Bend area and, with them, booming economic development. According to the 2007 article in The Economist entitled ``Booming Bend,'' ``Fabulous scenery attracts people with fabulous amounts of money.'' To sum it up, people seek places to live and work with the kind of high quality of life the Bend area can offer. The natural beauty and recreational opportunities of an area like Bend propel this growth.

The Bend community has been talking about protecting the special place known as the Badlands for many years. Volunteers have been working with long-time Oregon ranchers, notably Bev and Ray Clarno, whose family has worked the land for generations, along with conservationists, irrigators, and more than 200 local businesses to gain protection for the Badlands as wilderness.

This designation is also a tribute to a remarkable young woman, Rachel Scdoris, who grew up driving and training her sled dog team through this area--and the bill provides that she may continue doing so for as long as she chooses. Ms. Scdoris is legally blind, and she recently completed in her third Iditarod sled dog race.

This wilderness designation has been a long time in coming; it has been over two decades since the BLM began reviewing which lands should be considered candidates for wilderness. From that time forward, BLM has repeatedly concluded that the Badlands should be protected as Wilderness. It is time to make it happen. This unique part of the Oregon high desert needs to be permanently protected for generations to come.

The second bill I am introducing is the Spring Basin Wilderness Act of 2008, S. 3089. This region is further east and even more remote than the Badlands. Spring Basin is one of Central Oregon's premier wild areas. Overlooking the John Day Wild and Scenic River, the rolling hills of Spring Basin burst with color during the spring wildflower bloom. It boasts canyons and diverse geology that offers recreational opportunities for hikers, horseback riders, hunters, botanists, and other outdoor enthusiasts. The area is important habitat for populations of Mule Deer and Rocky Mountain Elk, as well as many bird species. To preserve this natural treasure, my bill would designate approximately 8,600 acres as the Spring Basin Wilderness.

During the past several years, many community leaders and adjacent landowners have approached me advocating for Wilderness designation for this spectacular land that borders the Wild and Scenic John Day River and the nearby John Day Fossil Beds. The area is known across Oregon for its profusion of spring wildflowers. The Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs, local landowners, the County Commission and the Federal Bureau of Land Management all support Wilderness designation for Spring Basin. In fact, Spring Basin was recommended to Congress as a wilderness area by the Bureau of Land Management in 1989. Protecting this scenic jewel will add to Oregon's treasured wilderness and the unique recreational opportunities it provides.

I want to express my thanks to all the volunteers and supporters who have worked tirelessly to protect this area and reached out to diverse community groups to build support. I also want to thank the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs for their engagement and support. The Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs own and manage approximately 30,000 acres of adjacent land that they manage to the north and east of Spring Basin. The Tribes manage these lands for the improvement of fish and wildlife habitat and I look forward to working with them to implement this legislation.

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

Mr. President, today, along with Senator Smith, I am introducing a bill to exempt wooden practice arrows from the unfair impact of an excise tax designed for much more expensive hunter and professional arrows. The JOBS Act of 2004 changed the tax on all arrows from 12.4 percent of an arrow's value to a fixed amount, adjusted for inflation, that now stands at 39 cents per arrow. Under the prior law, wooden practice arrows that cost 30 cents paid a tax of 3.6 cents. Under the current fixed tax, the same practice arrows are now assessed a tax of 39 cents per arrow, more than doubling the arrows' cost to the camps, schools and Boy Scouts that use them. The fixed tax is suited to the higher cost of hunter and professional arrows, which sell for up to $100 apiece. It is not suited for the less costly practice arrows and these should be made exempt as our legislation would do. The Archery Trade Association, which represents arrow makers large and small, supports this bill and agrees that the newer fixed tax unfairly and unintentionally hurts the makers and users of wooden practice arrows. Moreover, there is a precedent for exempting practice arrows, because Code section 4161 exempts youth bows, defined by their draw weight, from taxes. The Joint Committee on Taxation puts the cost of this arrows bill as $2 million over 10 years. This seems a small price to pay to help wooden arrow manufacturers struggling to stay in business in Oregon and 9 other States: Washington, Wisconsin, Arizona, Minnesota, Indiana, Virginia, New York, Utah and Texas. I urge my colleagues to support reform of the arrow excise tax to help both the makers and users of children's wooden practice arrows.

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

Mr. President, today, along with Senator Smith, I am introducing a bill to exempt wooden practice arrows from the unfair impact of an excise tax designed for much more expensive hunter and professional arrows. The JOBS Act of 2004 changed the tax on all arrows from 12.4 percent of an arrow's value to a fixed amount, adjusted for inflation, that now stands at 39 cents per arrow. Under the prior law, wooden practice arrows that cost 30 cents paid a tax of 3.6 cents. Under the current fixed tax, the same practice arrows are now assessed a tax of 39 cents per arrow, more than doubling the arrows' cost to the camps, schools and Boy Scouts that use them. The fixed tax is suited to the higher cost of hunter and professional arrows, which sell for up to $100 apiece. It is not suited for the less costly practice arrows and these should be made exempt as our legislation would do. The Archery Trade Association, which represents arrow makers large and small, supports this bill and agrees that the newer fixed tax unfairly and unintentionally hurts the makers and users of wooden practice arrows. Moreover, there is a precedent for exempting practice arrows, because Code section 4161 exempts youth bows, defined by their draw weight, from taxes. The Joint Committee on Taxation puts the cost of this arrows bill as $2 million over 10 years. This seems a small price to pay to help wooden arrow manufacturers struggling to stay in business in Oregon and 9 other States: Washington, Wisconsin, Arizona, Minnesota, Indiana, Virginia, New York, Utah and Texas. I urge my colleagues to support reform of the arrow excise tax to help both the makers and users of children's wooden practice arrows.

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

I think it would range up to 10 minutes.

Yes.

Mr. President, the television news folks spent much of yesterday looking at brain scans and pretty much counting out our friend Ted Kennedy. But I will tell you today, I think the TV crowd is missing a much bigger story; that is, Ted is the most determined person I have met, and anybody who counts Ted Kennedy out needs to have their head examined.

Now, earlier today, Senator Kennedy's son, Ted junior, gave me a call. Ted junior is a wonderful guy. We talked about all of the instances where his family has tackled illness, defeated cancer. Ted junior told me earlier today that his dad is mobilizing, he is building a battle plan against cancer, he is talking to the experts, he is digging out the facts the way we know Ted Kennedy does unlike anybody else here in the Senate. And certainly Senator Kennedy is not sugarcoating anything.

But I think it is also important to note that he sure is looking ahead. Senator Kennedy is especially looking forward to the passion of his life in public service, fixing health care and universal health coverage, coverage for all of our people.

Ted has always been America's go-to guy on health care. He has always been our conscience, our leader on the premier domestic issue of our time. Ted is always telling me--he is telling a lot of

the Senators--that this time Democrats and Republicans here in the Senate can get it done, that after 60 years of bickering and quarreling partisanship, at this time, it can get done. Ted says there is no reason the richest and strongest country on Earth cannot figure this out and cannot figure out a way to get good health care to all of our people. I especially like the way Ted points out that we have thousands and thousands of wonderful doctors and hospitals and health care providers. They are ready and waiting for the political leadership to step up and tackle this issue.

Now, nobody has stepped up on health care the way Ted Kennedy has. Nobody has put the effort into looking ahead and what is it going to take to fix the system, to build the coalitions--business, labor, seniors, doctors, health care providers--all the people who are going to be necessary to fix health care.

We should be very grateful that Ted Kennedy has always stepped up on fixing American health care, particularly the challenge of our time, universal coverage. And I for one am very glad this afternoon that Senator Kennedy is looking forward to being back at his post, as we go forward, Democrats and Republicans, and tackle this issue, this issue so important to our people and our families. That is what Senator Kennedy and his public service is all about. I want to report this afternoon, he is sure looking ahead to the big challenges we face. And we want him back here with us as soon as he can.

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