Floor Statements

Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Through the Chair, I would like to pose a couple of questions to my colleague making an important speech.

I have been attending a lot of town meetings across the State, and I know my colleague is attending some as well. What is your sense of how dire the situation is at home? When I talk to people, you get the sense this is a real lifeline, and I think it would be helpful if you could lay out exactly that sense of urgency you are picking up at home.

Again, through the Chair, Mr. President, would it be my colleague's sense that at home the kinds of services that are on the line are not exactly what the people call the extras? We are talking about law enforcement. We are talking about schools.

I know the Senator shares a long friendship with Sheriff Mike Winters, for example, of southern Oregon, and he has told me the kinds of cutbacks we have seen in law enforcement are extraordinary, such as involving the effort to fight methamphetamines.

What is your sense of the kinds of services we would see go by the boards if this program is not sustained?

Continuing through the Chair, Mr. President, isn't it correct, I

ask my colleague, that members of our delegation, of both political parties, have suggested alternatives for funding this program? For example, our whole delegation to a person was very troubled about this idea of selling off our treasures because not only was that not morally right, clearly it would have no prospect whatever of passing in the Senate. So I know our colleague in the other body who represents the eastern part of our State had some good ideas, and our colleague in the other body from southwestern Oregon had some good ideas. It seems to me--and I think it would be helpful if you could bring the Senate up to date--that both Democrats and Republicans have been trying to work in good faith for ideas that would responsibly fund this program. I think it would be helpful to have my colleague's reaction on that.

Mr. President, one last question, if I might, for my colleague. I appreciate his point with respect to the alternatives because the administration offered a proposal, a selloff of national treasures. I and others thought that was wrong. We went to work. Our colleagues came up with alternatives. Senator Baucus and I found an example in an area where Government contractors were not paying taxes in a prompt way. There were questions about whether it made sense, at least in the administration. Then they went off and took the revenues.

I think your point about how Democrats and Republicans have brought alternatives with respect to how to pay for this program in the Congress is an important one.

The last one I would like to have you lay out for the Senate is that I want Senators to know that this is not some exercise on our part, in terms of just plucking an arbitrary figure out of the air and saying: By God, this is the money that we want for our State. As I understand the presentation of the Senator, you are trying to lay out the history.

The history goes back to the beginning of the last century, essentially. Because the Federal Government owns more than half of our land, we historically received payments for essential services--schools, police and the like--that were based on timber receipts. Now that the environmental laws have changed, those funds are not there.

So, as I understand it, the presentation that my colleague is making today is based on the idea that this is not about Oregon's seeking some kind of arbitrary figure that we basically would like to offer up as kind of a wish list or to try to get through because we will try to bull it through, but that it is really based on history. It is based on a historical formula that stems from the fact that the Federal Government owns most of the land. Is that essentially the kind of historical viewpoint that my colleague is trying to bring to the Senate?

One last question, if I might, Mr. President. Also, let me also tell the Senate we are very pleased that the Senator from Vermont has joined the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. He is going to hear us talking an awful lot in the committee about the county payments legislation, but I just want to say tonight in the Senate I am very pleased the Senator from Vermont has come to the Senate, and we are glad to have him on the committee.

The last question I would pose to my colleague deals, again, with the urgency of all of this, so the Senate is clear on this. I think there is always a sense that sometimes you come to the floor and there is a little bit of an alarmist kind of approach.

My understanding is in our home State, from county officials, there are pink slips going out now. There are budgets that are being made now that are going to be very hard to alter. I appreciate my colleague's presentation over the last bit, and I enjoyed the earlier one as well, and I felt it was an important presentation.

What exactly is taking place? So the Senate is up on this in terms of county budgets, layoff notices, and the kind of pain--that is what this is really all about, the pain we are seeing working families and citizens going through--what exactly is taking place as these budget choices are being made?

I thank my colleague for his presentation. I hope the entire Senate followed this discussion--that our whole country does.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to hold a hearing during the session of the Senate on Monday, February 12, 2007, at 2:30 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The dual purpose of this hearing is to receive recommendations on policies and programs to improve the energy efficiency of buildings and to expand the role of electric and gas utilities in energy efficiency programs.

Mr. President, as a member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, I wish to talk a bit this morning about the all- important war against terrorism and particularly the sources of funding that allow the terrorists to obtain the resources with which they conduct this war.

It is impossible to talk about funding terrorism without mentioning Saudi Arabia. With its extraordinary oil wealth, the Saudis have a tremendous economy which is home to many strains of extremist Islamist thought. Over the years, the combination of wealth and extremism has proved to be a volatile combination.

A few years ago, a telethon in Saudi Arabia raised more than $100 million for the families of ``Palestinian martyrs,'' a group which reportedly included suicide bombers. According to public news reports, Saudi Arabia's ruler, King Fahd, ordered the fundraising drive as a way to channel public anger in the kingdom against the United States and Israel.

Just because the Saudis are no longer holding telethons for terrorists does not mean that they aren't providing substantial funding for terrorism in other ways.

A number of Government agencies have noted that Saudi Arabia is a source of funding for hate-filled extremist ideologies, but Saudi-based support for terrorism does not stop there. In fact, it may be a part, a small part of what we face in this war against terrorism. According to the State Department, Saudi donors and unregulated charities have been a major source of funding and support, not just for groups that preach radical ideologies but for actual terrorist organizations.

I wish to cite now some specific examples. An examination of the public record reveals clear connections with some of the world's most infamous organizations, such as al-Qaida. The staff of the 9/11 Commission, for example, noted that the intelligence community identified Saudi Arabia as the ``primary source of money for al-Qaida both before and after the September 11th attacks.'' They went on to say ``fundraisers and facilitators throughout Saudi Arabia and the Gulf raised money for al-Qaida from witting and unwitting donors and divert[ed] funds from Islamic charities and mosques.''

The Iraq Study Group, to look at another effort to examine these issues, stated that ``Funding for the Sunni insurgency in Iraq comes from private donors in Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states,'' and Iraqi officials have reportedly asked the Saudi Government to do more to limit the support that these donors provide to Iraqi insurgents.

The State Department has reported that private Saudi donors are a primary source of funding for Hamas.

Early last year, Ambassador Crumpton, the State Department's coordinator for counterterrorism, told a House subcommittee that the Saudi Government, ``had made a bit of progress in reducing the flow of funds from Saudi Arabia to Hamas and other Palestinian rejection groups, but conceded that the money funding these terrorists is still going on.''

Other governments have gone even further in their statements with respect to the funding of terrorism. In the fall of 2005, Israeli officials announced they arrested an individual, who they claimed was acting as a courier between Hamas members in the Palestinian territories and Hamas members in Saudi Arabia. No other governments have confirmed this, but if it is correct, it certainly raises a host of troubling questions. Clearly, one can see that the threat posed by these donors goes beyond the spread of religious intolerance and extremely dogmatic forms of Islam. Rather, money is flowing from Saudi Arabia to support insurgent groups in Iraq; money is flowing from Saudi Arabia to Palestinian terrorist groups such as Hamas; money is flowing from Saudi Arabia to al-Qaida.

Under Secretary of the Treasury Stewart Levey summed up this situation pretty clearly. He said:

Is money leaving Saudi Arabia to fund terrorism abroad?

Yes. Undoubtedly some of that money is going to Iraq, it's

going to Southeast Asia, and it's going to other places where

there are terrorists. There is money leaving Saudi Arabia.

I think it is also appropriate to put this in the context of what it means to folks this Pennsylvania and Oregon and everywhere else, and in effect what happens when you pull up at a gas station in Pennsylvania and Oregon is you are paying a terror tax. A portion of what you pay for gasoline in Pennsylvania or Oregon or elsewhere, in effect, finds its way eventually to the Government of Saudi Arabia, and then we see that the Saudis end up back-dooring it to various kinds of terrorist organizations.

The Government Accountability Office describes this problem very succinctly, stating it this way:

Saudi Arabia's multibillion-dollar petroleum industry,

although largely owned by the government, has fostered the

creation of large private fortunes, enabling many wealthy

Saudis to sponsor charities and educational foundations whose

operations extend to many countries. Government and other

expert reports have linked some Saudi donations to the global

propagation of religious intolerance, hatred of Western

values, and support to terrorist activities. So that is what

we are talking about when we talk about this terror tax

which literally is paid every time an American pulls up in

Pennsylvania, Oregon, or anywhere else and fills their

tank with gasoline.

The former Director of Central Intelligence, James Woolsey, summed it up pretty well just recently. He said:

We live in a world where Saudi Arabia earns about $160

billion from exporting oil and a big share of that, several

billion dollars, goes to the Wahabbi sect for their worldwide

work, which is to set up madrassas in Pakistan and other

places. And the ideology that is taught in those madrassas is

for all practical purposes the same as al-Qaida's.

As the GAO report notes, this problem appears to go beyond the funding of an ``al-Qaida ideology''--it appears to be funding terrorist activities.

So let me now turn for a few minutes to the question of the Saudi Government's role in all of this. When you look at all the evidence, it is pretty clear there is a serious problem, and the question is, What has the Saudi Arabian Government been doing about all of this? Are they part of the problem? Are they doing anything to address it?

Let me review the history. First, there appears to be no question that in the first couple of years after the 9/11 attacks, Saudi Arabia was directly involved in supporting terrorism. The telethon that raised money for families of suicide bombers was sponsored by the Saudi King. In many ways, the Saudis' position changed when terrorism hit home in the aftermath of the horrible terrorist bombings that

hit Riyadh in mid-2003. Since then, there seems to be broad agreement throughout the U.S. Government that the Saudi Government's counterterrorism efforts have improved.

It is not at all clear that the Saudi Government is going far enough to help in this fight against terrorism. Following the Riyadh bombings, the Saudi Government instituted a number of new antiterrorism laws and policies, but all the evidence indicates they have fallen short with respect to implementation of those laws. Here is an example: The Saudi Government announced that all charitable donations distributed internationally must flow through a new national commission that purportedly would ensure the money did not end up in the hands of terrorists. It has now been nearly 3 years since this announcement was made, and the commission is still not yet up and running. Even worse, our Treasury officials reported last year that the Saudi Government's brandnew, highly touted finance intelligence unit was not ``fully functioning.'' Similarly, while the Saudi Government has worked with the United States to designate particular charities as terrorist financiers, it is not always possible for our Treasury officials to independently verify that particular problem charities--the ones we are most concerned about--have actually been shut down.

Certainly, there have been some individuals in the Saudi Government who have attempted to address the terrorism question. At least since 2003, Saudi leaders have made a number of public statements indicating they wish to address the problem. But these examples make clear that the reality of what is needed to win this war against terrorism still is not in line with some of the rhetoric.

With respect to implementing and enforcing antiterrorism policies, the actions of the Saudi Arabian Government are questionable at best. There are two problems. The first is, as I have indicated, not all of the proposed new laws and policies have been implemented, and the second is that we have to get the Saudis to make a more aggressive commitment to enforcement. So you have to get them implemented, and then you have to get them enforced.

John Negroponte, of course, the Director of National Intelligence, has been following this. At one of our open meetings of the Intelligence Committee, I asked him his assessment of the situation. Director Negroponte indicated that, in his view, the situation had improved a bit since 2003, but he made it clear, stating specifically that more work needs to be done, especially in the area of private Saudi donors, and that more is needed to crack down on their activities.

This sentiment was echoed by the Congressional Research Service, which reported that no high-profile donors--none--had been subject to criminal punishment by the Saudi Government. The State Department has said publicly:

Saudi Arabia should demonstrate its willingness to hold

elites accountable.

But, unfortunately, in Saudi Arabia, the elites hold all the cards, and the Saudi Arabian Government, as indicated by the Congressional Research Service, is not willing to go after those who are most influential--the elites--in their country.

Now, some have gone even further and suggested that the Saudi Government might actually be involved in the propagation and financing of terrorism. The evidence on this point is inconclusive, but this does not rule out the possibility that lower level officials in the Saudi Government may, in fact, be involved in funding or facilitating terrorism. Given the high levels of corruption reported in Saudi Arabia, this is certainly a possibility.

Moreover, as the General Accounting Office points out, the distinction between the Government's support and funding versus that provided by entities and individuals, especially in the case of Saudi charities' alleged activities, is not always clear. The Saudi Royal Family is an excellent example. The Royal Family contains several thousand family members who collect Government allowances of varying amounts. If one of these royalties took a portion of their allowance money and funneled it to al-Qaida or Hamas, Saudi officials might claim that this did not even constitute Government support for terrorism. Certainly, I and others would say that the Government still bears significant responsibility.

I would also argue that just because Saudi leaders are not personally involved in financing terrorism, this should not absolve them from accountability. Most of my constituents would contend that if terrorist activities are being planned or financed inside Saudi Arabia, then the Saudi Arabian Government has a responsibility to get off the dime and stop it. As we say in our State, you are either part of the problem or you are part of the solution.

The Congress has a responsibility now to investigate this issue, and there are a number of key questions that ought to be answered.

First, how much money is flowing from Saudi Arabia to terrorist groups? Which groups are the major beneficiaries and to what extent is official corruption a major factor?

Second, there needs to be an examination of how far the Saudi Arabian Government has gone in implementing its new antiterrorist laws. Implementation and enforcement have clearly fallen short, but where can we see concrete examples of actual followup? What major gaps still remain?

Finally, there needs to be an examination of the internal situation in Saudi Arabia. Currently, the Saudi Government is run by a small group of men in their seventies and eighties. What is likely to happen when they are gone? How secure is the regime now? What sort of government would be likely to emerge if the Royal Family lost their power?

It would be premature to try to offer answers to these and the other key questions. What is clear is that our Government will need to put more pressure on Saudi leaders than the current administration has applied thus far.

It also seems very likely the answers will have a dramatic effect for U.S. energy policy which currently perpetuates our dependence on foreign oil. My guess is that people in Pennsylvania, like Oregonians, think that just about the most red, white, and blue thing we can do for our country is to get a new energy policy. Certainly, as we go forward to look into the activities of the Saudis, a bipartisan effort to get a new energy policy is a key factor in ensuring our ability to protect our citizens at a dangerous time.

In the coming weeks and months, I plan to examine this issue as a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee. I have asked our chairman, our very able chairman, Senator Rockefeller, to hold a closed hearing specifically dedicated to this topic, and one has been scheduled for this afternoon. It is time to bring to light the way in which Saudi oil money is fueling the fires of terrorism so people can actually see who is getting burned and what is necessary to protect the security and the well-being of Americans in a perilous world.

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

Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: I believe I have time reserved at this point. I was going to speak for a little over 20 minutes or so. I would like to inquire through the Chair of my colleagues if they wish to finish their remarks before I go to mine.

I thank my colleagues for their courtesy.

Mr. President, it is not breaking news that the American health care system is broken, even though our country has scores of dedicated and talented health care providers. It isn't breaking news that Congress has ducked fixing health care since 1994.

What should be breaking news is that for the first time in decades there is a genuine opportunity for Democrats and Republicans to work together to fix American health care.

A few days ago in his State of the Union Address, the President put forward a health care reform proposal that focuses on changing the Federal Tax Code. Since then, leading Democratic and Republican economists have joined forces to point out how Federal health care tax rules benefit the most affluent among us, and subsidize inefficiency as well.

For example, right now under the Federal Tax Code, a high-flying CEO can write off the cost on their Federal taxes of going out and getting a designer smile while a hard-working gal in a small hardware store in Montana, Oregon, or anywhere else in the country, gets virtually nothing.

I am of the view that Democrats and Republicans should work together to change this inequity and make sure that all of our citizens have affordable, quality, private health care coverage with private sector choices--the way Members of Congress do.

The Federal Tax Code and its policies have disproportionately rewarded the affluent. They came about because of what happened in the 1940s when there were wage and price controls. These policies might have worked for the 1940s, but they are clearly not right 60 years later. Democrats and Republicans can work together to change the Federal tax rules that grease the system and disproportionally reward the most affluent and subsidize inefficiency.

In return for those on the Democratic side of the aisle supporting a change in Federal health tax rules and coverage through private sector choices, the President and Republicans should join with Democrats and independent health experts of all political philosophies who say to fix health care we have to cover everybody for essential benefits. What is very clear now on health care is if we do not cover everybody--and not for Cadillac coverage, but for the essentials--our country will always have a health care system where those who have no coverage have their costs transferred to people who do have coverage. Every night in Montana, Oregon, and elsewhere in our country we have folks in hospital emergency rooms because they have not been able to get good outpatient health care, and the costs for folks in hospital emergency rooms who cannot pay get transferred to people who can pay. Many health care experts have theorized that perhaps up to 20 percent of the premium paid by people who have coverage is because of the costs for caring for those without coverage.

At this point in the debate, Democrats can say that Federal tax rules are inequitable with respect to health care and we can use private sector choices. My hope is Republicans will say to fix health care we have to have a system that covers everybody. Democrats and Republicans can come together to make that case.

There are other areas where we can find common ground right now between the political parties on health care. For example, Democrats and Republicans in the Senate think we ought to give a broad berth to the States to innovate in the health care area. Surely what works in the State of Montana may not necessarily work in Florida, Iowa, or New York. They say, ``Let's give a broad berth to the States to show innovative approaches.'' Particularly Governor Schwarzenegger and Governor Romney deserve a lot of credit for being willing to lead at the State level. In my State, folks have some innovative ideas, as well. My guess is they do in Montana, elsewhere. We can take steps to promote them. I personally don't think the States can do it all because the States cannot solve problems they did not create. That is why we need to change the Federal health care tax rules. Because of the federal tax rules, the Federal Government is the big spender in health care. The States cannot do a lot about that. But surely, as part of the effort to bring Democrats and Republicans together, we can agree to make changes in the Federal health care tax care rules and we can agree to get everyone covered. We can also agree there is a lot of common ground between Democrats and Republicans, to give States the opportunity to innovate.

Democrats and Republicans, as we look at the possibility of a coalition, can join together so we have health care rather than sick care. We do not do a lot to promote wellness and prevention in this country. Medicare shows that better than anything else. Medicare Part A will pay checks for thousands and thousands of dollars of hospital expenses. Medicare Part B, on the other hand, the part for outpatient services, hardly does anything to reward prevention and wellness. You can not even get a break on your premium--the Part B premium, they call it--if you help to hold down your blood pressure, cholesterol, stop smoking, and that sort of thing. Surely Democrats and Republicans can join hands to do more to promote prevention, and to have incentives for parents, for example, to get their kids involved in wellness.

This would not be some kind of national nanny program where we have the Federal Government saying, we are going to watch the chip bowl, but sensible prevention policies on which Democrats and Republicans can agree.

It also seems to me that Democrats and Republicans can join hands with respect to chronic health care and end of life health care. We know in the Medicare Program close to 5 percent of the people take about 50 percent of the health care dollars because those folks need chronic care and because of spending at the end of life. They need compassionate health care. We have not thought through policies that can bring both Democrats and Republicans together to deal with this area of health care where an enormous amount of the money is going.

For example, to get Medicare's hospice benefits, right now seniors have to choose whether they are going to get curative care or hospice care. That makes no sense at all. Why should a senior have to give up the prospects of getting a cure for their particular illness in order to get hospice benefit? Let's not pit the hospice benefit against curative care. Let's have Democrats and Republicans work together in order to make changes that expand the options available for older people.

The door is open right now. The State of the Union gave new visibility to the health care cause. Democrats, such as myself, who serve on the Committee on Finance, who will say these Federal health care tax rules are inequitable, can join hands with Republicans who will say we need to cover everybody and stop the cost shifting. The door is open right now if Democrats and Republicans will work together in a bipartisan basis.

Some people are saying it can't be done. They are saying there is too much polarization on health care and other big issues. Let's talk about it, once again, when there is a Presidential campaign. I send a clear message on that point, as well. Of course, this country can put off fixing health care once more, as it has done again and again for 60 years--going back to Harry Truman in the 81st Congress. It was 1945 when he began to talk about fixing health care. I guess one can argue, let's put it off again and have another Presidential campaign where people go back and forth on this issue. However, I submit that whoever the new President is in 2009--and I am very excited about our Democratic candidates--no matter who is the new President--should address this issue. However if, heaven forbid, there is a terrorist attack early in the new Administration, health care would get put

off once more. Perhaps we would go for several more years without talking about health care reform.

We have had people working to fix health care in this country for years and years, people on both sides of the aisle. On our side of the aisle, we have Senator Kennedy. No one has championed the cause of fixing health care for as many years as passionately as Senator Kennedy. Republicans have worked very hard for health care reform, as well.

I hope this question of health care reform is not somehow deferred once again until 2009. There is a broad consensus of what needs to be done. I outlined four or five areas this morning, starting with changing the Federal health care tax rules and making sure there are good private sector choices for Americans, getting everyone covered, and emphasizing prevention and wellness. That alone would be a good basis for Democrats and Republicans to start in. Clearly, a system that was created in the 1940s ought to be modernized in 2007. As I pointed out, the system that came about in the 1940s was a historical accident. There were wage and price controls and there was no way to get health care to working families other than to say, maybe the employers will cover it.

Today our businesses are up against global competitors that have their governments pick up their health care bill. The combination of the disadvantage our businesses face, the huge escalation of costs, the significant increase in chronic illness, and our rapidly aging population means the current system is not sustainable. It is not sustainable and that is why we need to act.

I am so pleased to see the Presiding Officer in the chair, a new Senator from Montana, who has lots of good ideas on health care and has campaigned on them. I know he and many on both sides of the aisle want to fix the system. That is what we got an election certificate to do, to work together on the most important issues, not put it off for another couple of years and have another Presidential campaign. We need to sort it out right now.

The American people know we ought to have a new focus, on prevention rather than sick care. We can work on that now. The American people know a lot of the States have innovative approaches. We can help them build on it. The American people know the tax system in the health care area disproportionately favors the most affluent and does not give a break to the working person and it ought to be changed. These are the reasons why both sides ought to join hands to do that.

The time to fix health care is now. There are a variety of proposals that have been put before the Congress. I have not even mentioned my legislation this morning, the Healthy Americans Act, based on many of the principles I have discussed today. I am not wedded to every provision or every part of it. It is a piece of legislation that can bring folks together. When I introduced it, Andy Stern, the president of the Service Employees International Union, 1.8 million members, was there, but so was Steve Burd, the CEO of Safeway, with over 200,000 employees. So was Bob Beall, the CEO of a company with 400 people. So was a member of the National Federation of Independent Businesses who was from Oregon. He spoke for himself, not for the group. He employs eight people. All of these employers said that the legislation would work for them.

Now it is up to us in the Senate. It is up to us, with the door open, to get Democrats and Republicans to come together. I certainly have not agreed with all the details of the President's proposal, but he has given some new visibility to the cause. All sides ought to say, let's get going, let's not wait for another campaign for President to go forward. Let us do our job now. There is much to work with that can bring both political parties together to fix American health care.

I will be spending a lot of my waking hours on that in the days ahead. I look forward to working with both Democrats and Republicans in the Senate to get it done.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to bring to light an important issue which threatens our national security and begs the attention of Congress. The legislation I propose today seeks to end the Iranian government's acquisition of sensitive military equipment by blocking the Pentagon's sale of F-14 fighter jet parts.

It is the sensitive job of the Department of Defense to demilitarize and auction off surplus military equipment. However, recent investigations and reports have uncovered a frightening trend regarding the sale of F-14 ``Tomcat'' aircraft parts. U.S. customs agents have discovered F-14 parts being illegally shipped to Iran by brokers who bought F-14 surplus equipment from Department of Defense auctions.

Other than the United States, Iran is the only Nation to fly the F- 14. The U.S. allowed Iran to buy 79 F-14s before its revolution in 1979. Fortunately, most of Iran's F-14s are currently grounded for lack of parts.

We know that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons capability. We know that the Department of State has identified Iran as the most active state sponsor of terrorism. We know that the sale of spare parts for F- 14s could make it more difficult to confront the nuclear weapons capability of Iran. And yet F-14 parts are still being sold by the DoD.

Iran's F-14s, especially with the parts to get more of them airborne, greatly strengthen its ground war potential, harming our national and global security. Our country should be doing everything possible to deny the brutal regime in Tehran access to spare parts for their F-14 fleet.

The Department of Defense will tell you that it is already taking action to control the sale of F-14 parts. A few times a year they change the restriction on the sale of F-14 parts. But history has shown us that these rules are not enough. The Department has been caught still selling F-14 parts, even when its rules forbid it. It has sold F- 14 parts to companies that have turned out to be fronts for the Iranians. More recently, the DoD sold sensitive technology, including classified F-14 parts to undercover GAO investigators.

My intention with this bill is to make it crystal clear to the Department of Defense that it may not sell any F-14 parts to anyone for any reason. There should be no chance for the parts to make their way to the Iranians.

Additionally, my bill would prohibit the export of any F-14 parts that have already been sold. This prevents the parts from ending up in Iran through even the most roundabout route.

I am not trying to reform the entire military surplus sales process. I am confident that the Armed Services Committee will continue its investigations and propose some much needed changes. My bill would simply fix a very specific, but very important, problem: the sale of F- 14 components that end up in the hands of Iran.

I urge the members of the Senate to support this bill.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to bring to light an important issue which threatens our national security and begs the attention of Congress. The legislation I propose today seeks to end the Iranian government's acquisition of sensitive military equipment by blocking the Pentagon's sale of F-14 fighter jet parts.

It is the sensitive job of the Department of Defense to demilitarize and auction off surplus military equipment. However, recent investigations and reports have uncovered a frightening trend regarding the sale of F-14 ``Tomcat'' aircraft parts. U.S. customs agents have discovered F-14 parts being illegally shipped to Iran by brokers who bought F-14 surplus equipment from Department of Defense auctions.

Other than the United States, Iran is the only Nation to fly the F- 14. The U.S. allowed Iran to buy 79 F-14s before its revolution in 1979. Fortunately, most of Iran's F-14s are currently grounded for lack of parts.

We know that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons capability. We know that the Department of State has identified Iran as the most active state sponsor of terrorism. We know that the sale of spare parts for F- 14s could make it more difficult to confront the nuclear weapons capability of Iran. And yet F-14 parts are still being sold by the DoD.

Iran's F-14s, especially with the parts to get more of them airborne, greatly strengthen its ground war potential, harming our national and global security. Our country should be doing everything possible to deny the brutal regime in Tehran access to spare parts for their F-14 fleet.

The Department of Defense will tell you that it is already taking action to control the sale of F-14 parts. A few times a year they change the restriction on the sale of F-14 parts. But history has shown us that these rules are not enough. The Department has been caught still selling F-14 parts, even when its rules forbid it. It has sold F- 14 parts to companies that have turned out to be fronts for the Iranians. More recently, the DoD sold sensitive technology, including classified F-14 parts to undercover GAO investigators.

My intention with this bill is to make it crystal clear to the Department of Defense that it may not sell any F-14 parts to anyone for any reason. There should be no chance for the parts to make their way to the Iranians.

Additionally, my bill would prohibit the export of any F-14 parts that have already been sold. This prevents the parts from ending up in Iran through even the most roundabout route.

I am not trying to reform the entire military surplus sales process. I am confident that the Armed Services Committee will continue its investigations and propose some much needed changes. My bill would simply fix a very specific, but very important, problem: the sale of F- 14 components that end up in the hands of Iran.

I urge the members of the Senate to support this bill.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to be able, after Senator Smith and Senator Allard have offered their amendments, and also Senator Reed, who was here earlier than I, to be able to offer a bipartisan amendment on a matter of critical importance to all from timber-producing States that deals with funding for schools and roads. I ask unanimous consent to be able to offer that bipartisan amendment after Senator Smith has offered his amendment, after Senator Allard has offered his amendment and after Senator Reed has had an opportunity to speak.

Madam President, if the distinguished Senator from Colorado is finished, I ask unanimous consent to set aside his amendment and call up an amendment I offer with Senator Smith and Senator Feinstein and Senator Boxer and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Madam President, in much of our country that is dependent on natural resources, there is a world of hurt today. There are tremendous concerns in many of our rural communities about how we are going to finance their schools and roads. In my State, more than 50 percent of the land is owned by the Federal Government. So we are not in a position to pay for schools and roads and essential services the way much of the rest of the country does because there, through transactions that occur on private property, they are able to generate the funds they need to pay for essential services.

When Senator Smith and I go home, we are faced with a very different situation. Because a law I wrote a number of years ago with Mr. Craig, the distinguished Senator from Idaho, expired at the end of the year, we are seeing a number of our local communities face Draconian cuts in essential services.

The layoff announcements are going on right now as local districts and local communities come together and wrestle with how they are going to make the difficult choices with respect to funding essential services. Cuts in excess of 70 percent of discretionary funding are going to cripple one of our counties in rural Oregon, southern Oregon, Douglas County, which currently receives about 43 percent of its annual

budget from the law I authored with Senator Craig.

Another of our counties, Jackson County, again in southern Oregon, is prepared to shut down all of its libraries. That will be coming up very shortly.

In Curry County, they are looking at the prospect of laying off all nonessential workers, including patrol officers, some of whom would be left to perform only the mandated corrections duties. By June, 20 percent of the county workforce in Curry County will have been cut. So it is not clear with these cuts whether the county will even be able to continue to be a county, as it will not be able to provide a minimum level of services.

Road department levels are going to be reduced in areas such as Josephine County and Linn County.

I am going to be having community meetings this weekend on the Oregon coast.

Tillamook County is looking at layoffs in the sheriff's department and cuts to its road maintenance, jeopardizing roads that are critical to getting sawlogs to the mills and having family-wage jobs for workers in my State.

Senator Feinstein and Senator Boxer join me in this. There are stories like this from across the country. Over 700 counties in 39 States have received critical funding from the county payments program. The fact is, in a State such as ours, where the Federal Government owns more than 50 percent of the land in many of these small communities with tiny populations, they are not going to be able to make it without these funds that are a lifeline in terms of law enforcement and schools and essential road and transportation services.

This is my top priority--my top priority--for my State in this session, to try to make sure these funds are reauthorized. In this particular amendment, Senator Smith and Senator Boxer and Senator Feinstein and I want to reauthorize the program for 1 year. But I am also introducing legislation for a long-term reauthorization because I think we ought to get these counties off the roller coaster once and for all.

This is based on an approach that was adopted many years ago with States that had widespread Federal ownership getting funds that related to timber receipts. As a result of the environmental laws, those receipts went down, and we needed this law to ensure that those counties would survive.

So the county payments legislation is supported by a diverse coalition, including the National Association of Counties and a number of labor organizations.

If Senators, particularly in rural communities, look now--as I have been in townhall meetings and other kinds of gatherings--at how we are going to support schools and roads and basic local government, I would only say that without this program, this will hit local communities like a wrecking ball. It is something that should not be abided by this Senate.

I see my colleague from Oregon, my partner in this and many other issues, standing, and I would like to yield at this time. After Senator Smith has completed his remarks, I will wrap up very briefly. I would also note that Senator Reed was here earlier, and I was not aware that he was in the queue as well, and I want him to be able to speak soon in a way that is convenient for him.

So I yield the floor.

I thank my colleague for his comments and his thoughtfulness. Before I make my concluding remarks on our amendment, I ask unanimous consent for Senator Jack Reed to speak after I have concluded.

To wrap up briefly, Senator Smith has stated it well. I am very honored to represent Oregon in the Senate. I have been able to get into a host of issues that I think are important, particularly as a member of the Finance Committee, to fix health care and fix the out-of- whack American tax system. I serve on the Intelligence Committee. But Senator Smith and I have said this is our most important issue for our State for this session because, without this funding, there is a real question about whether these local communities can hang on. They simply have no other options. You are not going to be able to go to a small resource-dependent community in eastern Oregon and set up a biotechnology company in the next few weeks. It is not going to happen. I support those kinds of industries and economic development, as does my colleague. It has been a big part of our bipartisan agenda. But we are talking about survival for these rural communities. This will be our top priority for this session.

This has also made a great contribution in terms of bringing together people of differing views on natural resources. As part of the legislation that I authored with Senator Craig a number of years ago-- as Senator Smith has noted--we set up resource advisory committees so that you now have folks in the timber industry talking to environmentalists who in the past were, for the most part, spending their days in the courthouses suing each other. Now they are working together to cooperate through the legislation that we have put in place. This has been recognized as a wildly successful natural resources law, bringing about cooperation that, prior to this law going into effect, was seen virtually nowhere.

It is a stable, consistent source of funding for communities that have nowhere else to turn, affecting communities in 39 States, but it is also a program that has brought together a unique kind of cooperation between people in the natural resources area who in the past would spend an awful lot of time running what I call a lawyers full employment program, essentially suing each other in the Federal courthouse.

We are going to be back on the floor for whatever number of times it takes to get this program reauthorized and take these rural communities off this roller coaster. They ought to be able to know that they can survive, and they can survive as they have over many years through a program that was tied to the unique consideration that the Federal Government owns most of our land. That is what this is all about. This is different than how people may pay for schools and roads and essential services in parts of the eastern United States where there is little Federal ownership.

We ask that the Senate not ignore the plight of rural America, particularly the rural West, as we continue forward with the legislative calendar.

Amendment No. 104 Withdrawn

I ask unanimous consent that this bipartisan amendment be withdrawn. We will be back another day. But I ask unanimous consent that the amendment I have offered be withdrawn.

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

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

Mr. President, we all understand there has been an awful lot of heated rhetoric about this issue of Medicare and negotiating drug prices and how much savings will come about for the consumer.

I and the distinguished senior Senator from Maine have been working for well over 3 years, in a bipartisan way, on this issue. I and Senator Snowe have been able to come up with an approach for dealing with this issue, helping the seniors of this country, helping the taxpayers of this country, and lowering the temperature of the debate about prescription drugs by showing how Medicare can be a smart shopper without setting up some kind of big Government price control regime.

Throughout this discussion over the last 3 years, Senator Snowe and I have repeatedly put into the legislation that we have brought to the Senate a strict prohibition on establishing any kind of price control regime or any kind of uniform formulary, which is essentially a list of drugs that restricts the choices for those involved--seniors or anyone else.

What Senator Snowe and I have tried to do is lower the temperature on this issue, to try to zero in, in a bipartisan way, on the areas where it is important for the Secretary of Health and Human Services to be in a position of trying to have some negotiations to get a break for the seniors and for the taxpayers. I will use those words specifically. We are talking about what could be a negotiation--not going in with some arbitrary price and throwing around figures of $1.20 a pill or something like that. We are talking about the opportunity for our Government to be a smart shopper, while steering clear of any price control regime. By the way, I know this was an important issue for the Presiding Officer as he campaigned to come here.

Senator Snowe and I voted for the Medicare prescription drug program. I still have the welts on my back to show for it. But what Senator Snowe and I said from the very outset, from the very time of the original Senate debate, is we were going to go to work on a bipartisan basis to try to fix those areas, such as the one identified by the Presiding Officer, the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island. We have set out to do just that. And in 2004, the Congressional Budget Office sent us a letter saying we were heading in the right direction.

Senator Snowe and I said from the beginning we have to make sure that seniors and taxpayers get a good deal when we have what are called single-source drugs, monopoly drugs. These are drugs where there isn't any ability to have the kind of leverage and clout we would like to have in the marketplace.

In 2004, the Congressional Budget Office sent me a letter that there could be savings if negotiations were permitted on single-source drugs for which there is no therapeutic equivalent. It is common sense, it seems to me, when the Congressional Budget Office says there could be savings in one kind of area, we would want to add that. The distinguished chairman of the Committee on Finance, Senator Baucus, puts it pretty well. Senator Baucus says: Why don't you add that to your cost containment tool box? Senator Baucus has said what we need is a variety of ways to hold down the cost--he calls it, in my view correctly, a kind of tool-box approach to making sure seniors and taxpayers get a good deal. What Senator Snowe and I have said is let's make sure that tool box that Senator Baucus has been talking about

zero in on this question of single-source drugs, where we do need some bargaining power.

There are some who have said the only possible way to have negotiations is if you set up some kind of one-size-fits-all national formulary. They say: The VA has one. Gosh, you all in the Senate would not want to limit the drugs available to our country's seniors.

Let me make it clear what Senator Snowe and I are doing rejects that approach. We are not talking about a nationwide formulary or some kind of list of drugs that restricts seniors' choices.

By the way, when the former Secretary of Health and Human Services, Tommy Thompson, felt it was important to do the kind of thing Senator Snowe and I are talking about on the drug Cipro, Secretary Thompson did not go out and set up a nationwide formulary. He didn't say: We are going to say the price of the pill is $1.27. He did not set up some kind of arbitrary price-control regime. Secretary Thompson, in his last meeting with the press when he was leaving the Department, said he wished he had the power to bargain under Medicare.

Secretary Thompson did exactly the kind of thing that I and Senator Snowe have been talking about. He said we have to make sure that the consumer and the taxpayers get a good deal for Cipro. Secretary Thompson did not set up a nationwide formulary. Secretary Thompson did not set up some price-control regime. Secretary Thompson did not say: It is going to be $1.27 per pill. He said: Let's negotiate, let's talk, let's go back and forth as everyone does in the marketplace in Rhode Island, Oregon and everywhere else across the country. Let's ask: What are we going to do to make sure that everyone gets a fair shake?

That situation, of course, was an emergency, because we had anthrax. But as the Senator from Rhode Island has pointed out a number of times over the last few months, for a lot of seniors, trying to afford prescription medicine is kind of like having a new emergency every day.

Secretary Thompson said: Yes, we have a big emergency on this anthrax situation. I think the Senator from Rhode Island knows exactly what I see when I am home in Coos Bay, John Day, Pendleton, or Gresham, Oregon, and everywhere else. For a lot of seniors in this country, every day is an emergency with respect to being able to afford their medicine. Those seniors ought to know that their Government, in the case of the single-source drug, for example, where there is monopoly power, can bargain in those kind of instances without price controls, without a nationwide formulary. That is what Senator Snowe and I and others, on a bipartisan basis, wish to stand up for--to help those seniors and those taxpayers.

Now, some have argued that as seniors get a better deal for Medicare, that means higher prices for everyone else. They, also, argue that negotiations would not do anything. I don't know how one can make both arguments at the same time and make sense. Those two do not connect.

What Senator Snowe and I wish to do is have a Medicare program that is a smart, savvy shopper. By being a better shopper, seniors and taxpayers are going to save. We know that no one goes to Costco and buys toilet paper one roll at a time. They shop smart. We ought to do that with Medicare.

I was pleased with last week's Committee on Finance hearing. Chairman Baucus and others said it is valuable to have additional information to know whether markets for drugs are achieving the best price possible. I and Senator Snowe have been interested in that approach as well. We know there are a variety of pharmacies out there that can offer cheaper medicines to seniors without limiting the drugs available, and we find it hard to believe that Medicare cannot do exactly the same thing. Let us give Medicare the opportunity to do exactly the same thing that people do in New Hampshire, Texas, and Rhode Island; that is, to shop smart, look for a bargain, and don't set up nationwide price controls and don't set up a nationwide formulary that restricts the kind of drugs our seniors can get.

If we work in a bipartisan way, which is what Senator Snowe and I have been trying to do on this issue for 3\1/2\ years, we can draw a line that promotes smart shopping in Medicare without going over the line to price controls and restrictive formularies. Let us try to lower the temperature on this particular debate by looking at ways to shop smart without price controls.

In 2004, the Congressional Budget Office said it would make a difference in at least one key area I have been talking about today. I believe it would make a difference in other key areas. I am looking forward, as a member of the Senate Committee on Finance, to working under the leadership of Chairman Baucus, on a bipartisan basis, to get this issue resolved because, as the Presiding Officer of the Senate has noted over these many months, this is not an abstract issue for the people most involved. Those are seniors walking on an economic tightrope. We don't know what will happen to medical costs this year, but we can make sure we use every possible opportunity without price controls to make the Medicare Program a smart shopper.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, it has been more than a decade since the U.S. Senate last addressed fixing health care. I do not think it is morally right for the Senate to duck on health care any longer and that is why I am proposing legislation today to provide affordable, guaranteed, private health coverage for all Americans.

The legislation, called the Healthy Americans Act, ensures care for the 46 million Americans who now live without health insurance, frees business owners from the skyrocketing costs of insuring their workers, and promises every American health care coverage that can never be taken away. My proposal is fully paid for, holds down health care cost growth in the future and provides coverage just like Members of Congress can get now.

America spent $2.2 trillion on health care last year. PriceWaterhouseCoopers expects premiums will increase 11 percent this year alone and I believe the American health care system as we know it is not sustainable.

Our current employer-sponsored health insurance system is a historic accident. In the 1940s, employers needed a way to attract workers as wage and price controls continued. Our country needs a uniquely American solution that works for an economy that is competing not just with the company across town but the company across the world. Americans need a health care system that works for individuals and families, and encourages people to stay healthy instead of only seeking care after they are sick.

The Healthy Americans Act does this and more. It doesn't take long to explain how the Healthy Americans Act works. From the first day individuals, families and businesses win. The Healthy Americans Act cuts the link between health insurance and employment altogether. Under the Healthy Americans Act, businesses paying for employee health premiums are required to increase their workers' paychecks by the amount they spent last year on their health coverage. Federal tax law is changed to hold the worker harmless for the extra compensation, and the worker is required to purchase private coverage through an exchange in their State that forces insurance companies to offer simplified, standardized coverage, with benefits like a Member of Congress gets, and prohibits insurers from engaging in price discrimination.

Requiring employers to cash out their health premiums, as I propose in the Healthy Americans Act, is good for both employers and workers. With health premiums going up 11 percent this year, employers are going to be glad to be exempt from these increases. With the extra money in their paycheck, workers have a new incentive to shop for their health care and hold down their cost. If a worker can save a few hundred dollars on their health care purchase, they can use that money for something else they need.

In addition, the Healthy Americans Act is easy to administer and guarantees lifetime health security. Once you have signed up with a plan through an exchange in the State in which you live, that is it; you have completed the administrative process. Even if you lose your job or you go bankrupt, you can never have your coverage taken away. Sign up, and the premium you pay for the plan and all of the administrative activities are handled through the tax system. For those who cannot afford private coverage, the Healthy Americans Act subsidizes their purchases.

Businesses that have not been able to afford health coverage for their workers, under the new approach, will pay a fee--one that is tiered to their size and revenue, with some paying as little as 2 percent of the national average premium amount per worker for that basic benefit package.

It will be easy to administer, locally controlled, with guaranteed coverage as good as your Member of Congress gets. The Lewin Group has costed out my proposal and reports that it is fully paid for and in addition to expanding coverage for millions of people, guaranteeing health benefits as good as their Member of Congress gets, it also saves $4.5 billion in health spending in the first year. Money is saved by reducing the administrative costs of insurance, reducing cost shifting, and preventing those needless hospital emergency room visits. Also, there are substantial incentives that come about because insurance companies would have to compete for the business of consumers, who would have a new incentive to hold down health costs.

There are other parts of the Healthy Americans Act I wish to describe briefly. As the name of the legislation suggests, I believe strongly that fixing American health care requires a new ethic of health care prevention, a sharp new focus in keeping our citizens well, and trying to keep them from falling victim to skyrocketing rates of increase in diabetes, heart attack, and strokes.

Spending on these chronic illnesses is soaring, and it is especially sad to see so many children and seniors fall victim to these diseases. Yet many Government programs and private insurance devote most of their attention to treating Americans after they are ill and give short shrift to wellness.

Under the Healthy Americans Act, there will be for the first time significant new incentives for all Americans to stay healthy. They are voluntary incentives, but ones that I think will make a real difference in building a national new ethic of wellness and health care prevention.

Parents who enroll children in wellness programs will be eligible for discounts in their own premiums. Instead of mandating that parents take youngsters to various health programs--and maybe they do and maybe they don't--the Healthy Americans Act says when a parent takes a child to one of those wellness programs, the parent would be eligible to get a discount on the parent's health premiums.

Under the Healthy Americans Act, employers who financially support health care prevention for their workers get incentives for doing that as well. Medicare is authorized to reduce outpatient Part B premiums so as to reward seniors trying to reduce their cholesterol, lose weight, or decrease the risk of stroke. It has never been done before. For example, Part B of Medicare, the outpatient part, doesn't offer any incentives for older Americans to change their behavior. Everybody pays the same Medicare Part B premium right now. The Healthy Americans Act proposes we change that and ensures that if a senior from Virginia or Oregon or elsewhere is involved in a wellness program, in health care prevention efforts, like smoking cessation, they could get a lower Part B premium for doing that.

The preventive health efforts I have described are promoted through new voluntary incentives under the Healthy Americans Act, not heavy- handed mandates. What this legislation says is--let's make it more attractive for people to stay healthy and change their behaviors to promote the kind of wellness practices we all know we should do but need an incentive to follow.

Finally, and most importantly, the Healthy Americans Act does not harm those who have coverage in order to help those who have nothing. The legislation makes clear that all Americans retain the right to purchase as much health care coverage as they want. All Americans will enjoy true health security with the Healthy Americans Act, a lifetime guarantee of coverage at least as good as their Member of Congress receives.

A recent ``Health Affairs'' article pointed out that more than half of the Nation's uninsured are ineligible for public programs such as Medicaid, but do not have the money to purchase coverage for themselves.

At present, for most poor people to receive health benefits, they have to go out and try to squeeze themselves into one of the categories that entitles them to care. Under the Healthy Americans Act, low-income people will receive private health coverage, coverage that is as good as a Member of Congress gets, automatically. Like everyone else, they will sign up through the exchange in their State. When they are working, the premiums they owe are withheld from their paycheck. If they lose their job, there is an automatic adjustment in their withholding.

In addition, under the Healthy Americans Act, it will be more attractive for doctors and other health care providers to care for the poor. Those who are now in underfunded programs, such as Medicaid, are going to be able to have private insurance that pays doctors and other providers commercial rates which are traditionally higher than Medicaid reimbursement rates.

Because low-income children and the disabled are so vulnerable, if Medicaid provides benefits that are not included in the kind of package Members of Congress get, then those low-income folks would be entitled to get the additional benefits from the Medicaid Program in their State.

The Healthy Americans Act also makes changes in Medicare. As the largest Federal health program, Medicare's financial status is far more fragile than Social Security. Two-thirds of Medicare spending is now devoted to about 5 percent of the elderly population. Those are the seniors with chronic illness and the seniors who need compassionate end-of-life health care. The Healthy Americans Act strengthens Medicare for both seniors and taxpayers in both of these areas.

In addition to reducing Medicare's outpatient premiums for seniors who adopt healthy lifestyles and reduce the prospect of chronic illness, primary care reimbursements for doctors and other providers get a boost under the Healthy Americans Act. Good primary care for seniors also reduces the likelihood of chronic illness that goes unmanaged. This reimbursement boost is sure to increase access to care for seniors--and I see them all over, in Oregon and elsewhere--who are having difficulty finding doctors who will treat them.

To better meet the needs of seniors suffering from multiple chronic illnesses, the Healthy Americans Act promotes better coordination of their care by allowing a special management fee to providers who better assist seniors with these especially important services.

Hospice law is changed so that seniors who are terminally ill do not have to give up care that allows them to treat their illness in order to get the Medicare hospice benefit. In addition, the Healthy Americans Act empowers all our citizens wishing to make their own end-of-life care decisions. The legislation requires hospitals and other facilities to give patients the choice of stating in writing how they would want their doctor and other health care providers to handle various end-of- life care decisions.

When I announced the Healthy Americans Act last December, I stood with an unprecedented coalition of labor and business. Andy Stern, president of SEIU said ``It is time for fundamental, not incremental change and Senator Wyden has a plan that is practical and principle, and sets down a moral test'' 'Why doesn't every American have the right to the same health care as the President, the Vice President, 535 members of Congress and 3 million Federal workers?' '' Steve Burd, the CEO of Safeway, a Fortune 50 company that has focused on prevention and wellness, called the Healthy Americans Act ``an innovative proposal that lays a foundation to begin a serious discussion on health care reform in this country.''

Ron Pollack of Families USA, listed the principles embodied in the Healthy Americans Act that he believes are important: universality; subsides to make the coverage affordable; community rating rules so the sicker and older are not priced out of the market; and benefits like a Member of Congress has today.

Also at my press conference was Mike Roach, of Portland, OR, a 30- year member of National Federation of Independent Businesses. He owns a clothing store in Portland and employs eight people. He believes the Healthy Americans Act will help him attract good employees. And Bob Beal, president of Oregon Iron Works, an Oregon-based company that competes internationally, believes that we must also address the skyrocketing health care costs that make it harder for companies like his in the international market place.

Like me, the people who stood by me when I announced the Healthy Americans Act believe we need to move the health care debate forward and cannot afford to let more time to go by. The last time Congress took a serious look at reforming health care, there wasn't anything resembling this kind of coalition of labor, business, low-income and end-of-life advocates standing together to call for action.

In tackling one-seventh of the economy, invariably technical issues arise. I want to thank many people who have assisted along the way. Len Nichols of the New America Foundation sent me e-mails at 2 in the morning that helped refine provisions. John Sheils, Randy Haught and Evelyn Murphy of the Lewin Group assisted in telling us our numbers worked or didn't. The Congressional Research Service staff followed up on questions from the common to the obscure. That group included: Bob Lyke, Jeanne Hearne, April Grady, Julie Whitaker, Christine Scott, Chris Peterson, Richard Rimkunas, Karen Trintz, Julie Stone and Andrew Sommers. The Senate Legislative Counsel staff translated the ideas and concepts into legislative language. They devoted an enormous amount of time in getting the ideas and the language right. I'd like to thank Mark Mathiesen, Mark McGunagle, Bill Baird, John Goetcheus, Stacy Kern- Sheerer, Kelly

Malone and Ruth Ernest for their patience and extraordinary effort.

On my staff, Joshua Sheinkman, my legislative director and Jeff Michaels, my administrative assistant, were instrumental in completing the tax and business sections of the bill. Emily Katz who started in my office as a legislative fellow and became a permanent part of the Wyden health team made sure we had credible facts and statistics. Last but not least, I would like to thank Stephanie Kennan, my Senior Health Policy Adviser for the last 9 years who played devil's advocate, worked through the conflicting and evolving ideas, and kept the many threads of the bill working together.

The full text of the Healthy Americans Act and the Lewin analysis are available on my Web site.

In closing, I believe that without your health, you don't get to the starting line of life. For too long, the Congress has dodged the debate and chosen to slice off parts of the issue. And as worthy as those past efforts have been to help certain segments of our citizens, all Americans deserve guaranteed coverage like their Member of Congress, and no one should go to bed at night worrying about losing their health care. It is time for Congress to provide 21st century solutions to one of the most important issues our country must address. The Healthy Americans Act starts that debate.

I ask unanimous consent, that the Healthy Americans Act section-by- section summary, and examples of how the legislation would affect individuals and families and employers be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, it has been more than a decade since the U.S. Senate last addressed fixing health care. I do not think it is morally right for the Senate to duck on health care any longer and that is why I am proposing legislation today to provide affordable, guaranteed, private health coverage for all Americans.

The legislation, called the Healthy Americans Act, ensures care for the 46 million Americans who now live without health insurance, frees business owners from the skyrocketing costs of insuring their workers, and promises every American health care coverage that can never be taken away. My proposal is fully paid for, holds down health care cost growth in the future and provides coverage just like Members of Congress can get now.

America spent $2.2 trillion on health care last year. PriceWaterhouseCoopers expects premiums will increase 11 percent this year alone and I believe the American health care system as we know it is not sustainable.

Our current employer-sponsored health insurance system is a historic accident. In the 1940s, employers needed a way to attract workers as wage and price controls continued. Our country needs a uniquely American solution that works for an economy that is competing not just with the company across town but the company across the world. Americans need a health care system that works for individuals and families, and encourages people to stay healthy instead of only seeking care after they are sick.

The Healthy Americans Act does this and more. It doesn't take long to explain how the Healthy Americans Act works. From the first day individuals, families and businesses win. The Healthy Americans Act cuts the link between health insurance and employment altogether. Under the Healthy Americans Act, businesses paying for employee health premiums are required to increase their workers' paychecks by the amount they spent last year on their health coverage. Federal tax law is changed to hold the worker harmless for the extra compensation, and the worker is required to purchase private coverage through an exchange in their State that forces insurance companies to offer simplified, standardized coverage, with benefits like a Member of Congress gets, and prohibits insurers from engaging in price discrimination.

Requiring employers to cash out their health premiums, as I propose in the Healthy Americans Act, is good for both employers and workers. With health premiums going up 11 percent this year, employers are going to be glad to be exempt from these increases. With the extra money in their paycheck, workers have a new incentive to shop for their health care and hold down their cost. If a worker can save a few hundred dollars on their health care purchase, they can use that money for something else they need.

In addition, the Healthy Americans Act is easy to administer and guarantees lifetime health security. Once you have signed up with a plan through an exchange in the State in which you live, that is it; you have completed the administrative process. Even if you lose your job or you go bankrupt, you can never have your coverage taken away. Sign up, and the premium you pay for the plan and all of the administrative activities are handled through the tax system. For those who cannot afford private coverage, the Healthy Americans Act subsidizes their purchases.

Businesses that have not been able to afford health coverage for their workers, under the new approach, will pay a fee--one that is tiered to their size and revenue, with some paying as little as 2 percent of the national average premium amount per worker for that basic benefit package.

It will be easy to administer, locally controlled, with guaranteed coverage as good as your Member of Congress gets. The Lewin Group has costed out my proposal and reports that it is fully paid for and in addition to expanding coverage for millions of people, guaranteeing health benefits as good as their Member of Congress gets, it also saves $4.5 billion in health spending in the first year. Money is saved by reducing the administrative costs of insurance, reducing cost shifting, and preventing those needless hospital emergency room visits. Also, there are substantial incentives that come about because insurance companies would have to compete for the business of consumers, who would have a new incentive to hold down health costs.

There are other parts of the Healthy Americans Act I wish to describe briefly. As the name of the legislation suggests, I believe strongly that fixing American health care requires a new ethic of health care prevention, a sharp new focus in keeping our citizens well, and trying to keep them from falling victim to skyrocketing rates of increase in diabetes, heart attack, and strokes.

Spending on these chronic illnesses is soaring, and it is especially sad to see so many children and seniors fall victim to these diseases. Yet many Government programs and private insurance devote most of their attention to treating Americans after they are ill and give short shrift to wellness.

Under the Healthy Americans Act, there will be for the first time significant new incentives for all Americans to stay healthy. They are voluntary incentives, but ones that I think will make a real difference in building a national new ethic of wellness and health care prevention.

Parents who enroll children in wellness programs will be eligible for discounts in their own premiums. Instead of mandating that parents take youngsters to various health programs--and maybe they do and maybe they don't--the Healthy Americans Act says when a parent takes a child to one of those wellness programs, the parent would be eligible to get a discount on the parent's health premiums.

Under the Healthy Americans Act, employers who financially support health care prevention for their workers get incentives for doing that as well. Medicare is authorized to reduce outpatient Part B premiums so as to reward seniors trying to reduce their cholesterol, lose weight, or decrease the risk of stroke. It has never been done before. For example, Part B of Medicare, the outpatient part, doesn't offer any incentives for older Americans to change their behavior. Everybody pays the same Medicare Part B premium right now. The Healthy Americans Act proposes we change that and ensures that if a senior from Virginia or Oregon or elsewhere is involved in a wellness program, in health care prevention efforts, like smoking cessation, they could get a lower Part B premium for doing that.

The preventive health efforts I have described are promoted through new voluntary incentives under the Healthy Americans Act, not heavy- handed mandates. What this legislation says is--let's make it more attractive for people to stay healthy and change their behaviors to promote the kind of wellness practices we all know we should do but need an incentive to follow.

Finally, and most importantly, the Healthy Americans Act does not harm those who have coverage in order to help those who have nothing. The legislation makes clear that all Americans retain the right to purchase as much health care coverage as they want. All Americans will enjoy true health security with the Healthy Americans Act, a lifetime guarantee of coverage at least as good as their Member of Congress receives.

A recent ``Health Affairs'' article pointed out that more than half of the Nation's uninsured are ineligible for public programs such as Medicaid, but do not have the money to purchase coverage for themselves.

At present, for most poor people to receive health benefits, they have to go out and try to squeeze themselves into one of the categories that entitles them to care. Under the Healthy Americans Act, low-income people will receive private health coverage, coverage that is as good as a Member of Congress gets, automatically. Like everyone else, they will sign up through the exchange in their State. When they are working, the premiums they owe are withheld from their paycheck. If they lose their job, there is an automatic adjustment in their withholding.

In addition, under the Healthy Americans Act, it will be more attractive for doctors and other health care providers to care for the poor. Those who are now in underfunded programs, such as Medicaid, are going to be able to have private insurance that pays doctors and other providers commercial rates which are traditionally higher than Medicaid reimbursement rates.

Because low-income children and the disabled are so vulnerable, if Medicaid provides benefits that are not included in the kind of package Members of Congress get, then those low-income folks would be entitled to get the additional benefits from the Medicaid Program in their State.

The Healthy Americans Act also makes changes in Medicare. As the largest Federal health program, Medicare's financial status is far more fragile than Social Security. Two-thirds of Medicare spending is now devoted to about 5 percent of the elderly population. Those are the seniors with chronic illness and the seniors who need compassionate end-of-life health care. The Healthy Americans Act strengthens Medicare for both seniors and taxpayers in both of these areas.

In addition to reducing Medicare's outpatient premiums for seniors who adopt healthy lifestyles and reduce the prospect of chronic illness, primary care reimbursements for doctors and other providers get a boost under the Healthy Americans Act. Good primary care for seniors also reduces the likelihood of chronic illness that goes unmanaged. This reimbursement boost is sure to increase access to care for seniors--and I see them all over, in Oregon and elsewhere--who are having difficulty finding doctors who will treat them.

To better meet the needs of seniors suffering from multiple chronic illnesses, the Healthy Americans Act promotes better coordination of their care by allowing a special management fee to providers who better assist seniors with these especially important services.

Hospice law is changed so that seniors who are terminally ill do not have to give up care that allows them to treat their illness in order to get the Medicare hospice benefit. In addition, the Healthy Americans Act empowers all our citizens wishing to make their own end-of-life care decisions. The legislation requires hospitals and other facilities to give patients the choice of stating in writing how they would want their doctor and other health care providers to handle various end-of- life care decisions.

When I announced the Healthy Americans Act last December, I stood with an unprecedented coalition of labor and business. Andy Stern, president of SEIU said ``It is time for fundamental, not incremental change and Senator Wyden has a plan that is practical and principle, and sets down a moral test'' 'Why doesn't every American have the right to the same health care as the President, the Vice President, 535 members of Congress and 3 million Federal workers?' '' Steve Burd, the CEO of Safeway, a Fortune 50 company that has focused on prevention and wellness, called the Healthy Americans Act ``an innovative proposal that lays a foundation to begin a serious discussion on health care reform in this country.''

Ron Pollack of Families USA, listed the principles embodied in the Healthy Americans Act that he believes are important: universality; subsides to make the coverage affordable; community rating rules so the sicker and older are not priced out of the market; and benefits like a Member of Congress has today.

Also at my press conference was Mike Roach, of Portland, OR, a 30- year member of National Federation of Independent Businesses. He owns a clothing store in Portland and employs eight people. He believes the Healthy Americans Act will help him attract good employees. And Bob Beal, president of Oregon Iron Works, an Oregon-based company that competes internationally, believes that we must also address the skyrocketing health care costs that make it harder for companies like his in the international market place.

Like me, the people who stood by me when I announced the Healthy Americans Act believe we need to move the health care debate forward and cannot afford to let more time to go by. The last time Congress took a serious look at reforming health care, there wasn't anything resembling this kind of coalition of labor, business, low-income and end-of-life advocates standing together to call for action.

In tackling one-seventh of the economy, invariably technical issues arise. I want to thank many people who have assisted along the way. Len Nichols of the New America Foundation sent me e-mails at 2 in the morning that helped refine provisions. John Sheils, Randy Haught and Evelyn Murphy of the Lewin Group assisted in telling us our numbers worked or didn't. The Congressional Research Service staff followed up on questions from the common to the obscure. That group included: Bob Lyke, Jeanne Hearne, April Grady, Julie Whitaker, Christine Scott, Chris Peterson, Richard Rimkunas, Karen Trintz, Julie Stone and Andrew Sommers. The Senate Legislative Counsel staff translated the ideas and concepts into legislative language. They devoted an enormous amount of time in getting the ideas and the language right. I'd like to thank Mark Mathiesen, Mark McGunagle, Bill Baird, John Goetcheus, Stacy Kern- Sheerer, Kelly

Malone and Ruth Ernest for their patience and extraordinary effort.

On my staff, Joshua Sheinkman, my legislative director and Jeff Michaels, my administrative assistant, were instrumental in completing the tax and business sections of the bill. Emily Katz who started in my office as a legislative fellow and became a permanent part of the Wyden health team made sure we had credible facts and statistics. Last but not least, I would like to thank Stephanie Kennan, my Senior Health Policy Adviser for the last 9 years who played devil's advocate, worked through the conflicting and evolving ideas, and kept the many threads of the bill working together.

The full text of the Healthy Americans Act and the Lewin analysis are available on my Web site.

In closing, I believe that without your health, you don't get to the starting line of life. For too long, the Congress has dodged the debate and chosen to slice off parts of the issue. And as worthy as those past efforts have been to help certain segments of our citizens, all Americans deserve guaranteed coverage like their Member of Congress, and no one should go to bed at night worrying about losing their health care. It is time for Congress to provide 21st century solutions to one of the most important issues our country must address. The Healthy Americans Act starts that debate.

I ask unanimous consent, that the Healthy Americans Act section-by- section summary, and examples of how the legislation would affect individuals and families and employers be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, for almost 13 years, it has been considered politically dangerous to come to the floor of the Senate and describe a fresh approach to fixing health care in America. I am going to do that this morning because I do not believe it is morally right for the Senate to duck on health care any longer.

During the Senate's long absence, the skyrocketing costs of health care have hit American communities like a wrecking ball. PricewaterhouseCoopers estimates that health care premiums will rise 11 percent this year, several times the rate of inflation. In America, with the world's best doctors, nurses, hospitals, and other providers, many with health coverage believe they are just one more rate hike away from losing the coverage they have, and more than 40 million Americans have little or no coverage at all.

Just about all of us are baffled about how to purchase the health care that is best for us. In fact, it is easier to get information about the cost and quality of washing machines than it is to get information about health care that can mean life or death. I believe the combination of cost hikes, increases in chronic illness, our aging society, and the disadvantage American employers face in global markets, where their competitors spend little or nothing for health, means our current health system cannot be sustained.

Since health care has been poked and prodded for so many years, I believe it is time for diagnosis and treatment. As usual, it makes sense to start with a look at the financial bottom line. Go there, and it sure looks as if we Americans are spending enough money on medical care. Last year, according to the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Americans spent $2.2 trillion on health care. There are about 300 million of us. You divide 300 million into $2.2 trillion, and it would be possible to send every man, woman, and child in America a check for more than $7,000. Here is another way to look at it: For the money Americans spent on health care last year, we could have hired a group of skilled physicians, paid each one of them $200,000 to care for seven families, and all Americans would have quality, affordable health care. Whenever I mention those figures to a physicians group, it takes about 30 seconds before a doctor stands up and says: Ron, where do I go to get my seven families?

My conclusion, after reviewing the numbers and expenditures for health care: America is spending enough money on medical services; it is just not spending the money in the right places.

While the Senate has taken a pass on fixing health care and redirecting misspent health dollars, several State leaders have stepped forward. In my view, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Mitt Romney deserve substantial credit just for trying to lead on health care. I will discuss in a minute why I do not agree with their decision to continue the link between health insurance and employment, but Governors Schwarzenegger and Romney deserve America's thanks for making it clear that they will not sit quietly by while Washington, DC, slow-walks health care.

As a member of the Senate Finance Committee, I intend to help State officials obtain the special waivers in Federal health programs they need to make Federal dollars in their States stretch further for health care. Having already stated that I believe enough money is being spent on medical services, I am especially interested in helping the States make better use of their existing funds. As a result of the new initiatives in California, Massachusetts, and other States, some in the Congress believe the next few years should be spent watching how the States fare in their efforts. Meaning well, these Congress people believe our role in the Congress should primarily be to ship more Federal money to the States for their reforms and then pretty much call it a day. Respectfully, I disagree. I believe there is no possible way the States can fix health care because the States did not create the major problems in American health care. Who did? The Federal Government, the big spender of health dollars in America, the architect of the policies now driving American health care toward implosion.

Here is how it happened. More than 60 years ago, with wage and price controls in effect, our employers found that they could get good workers by giving them health care benefits. Employer-based health coverage was born and generously greased by the adoption of Federal tax policies that make employer-based health coverage a deductible expense for employers and a tax-free benefit for workers. Soon most workers came to get their health coverage through their employer. It became the norm for talented workers to quickly ask prospective employers: Say, tell me about your health package.

Today, these Federal tax breaks total more than $200 billion annually. The cost, however, involves more than dollars. These tax breaks go disproportionately to the wealthiest in America and subsidize inefficiency to boot. A high-flying CEO at a major corporation can write off the cost of Cadillac health coverage or even getting a designer smile for his face, while the folks at the corner hardware store lack company health coverage and get nothing. With employer- sponsored health coverage, an individual worker is largely in the dark about whether they have been overcharged for health care, and the Tax Code allows for a writeoff for wasteful spending. These Federal tax policies that reward regressive practices and inefficient health spending are taking a large and growing toll.

For example, an increasing number of the uninsured work at small businesses, like the hardware store that fares so poorly under the Federal Tax Code. Because these small businesses cannot afford health care for their workers, these workers often ignore their illnesses until they can bear it no longer. Their next stop--the hospital emergency room, where the medical bills generated by the uninsured are often passed on to the insured and to taxpayers.

My next picture shows where we are headed with the employer-based health coverage. In an era where such cost shifting is widespread and some companies spend almost as much on health care as they make in profit, employer-based health coverage is melting away similar to this popsicle on the summer sidewalk in August.

If PricewaterhouseCoopers is right and health premiums rise another 11 percent this year, those with employer-based coverage will face another round of big copayments for their health care, more deductibles, and additional benefit reduction this year. Their choice is likely to be worse coverage or no coverage.

Recently, a woman in her fifties came to one of my town hall meetings in Oregon and said:

I just hope my employer can keep offering health benefits

and I can hang in there until I get Medicare.

I believe this Senate ought to act when hard-working Americans go to bed at night worried about the prospect of losing their health coverage when they get up in the morning. Now, you could argue that 60 years ago employer-based health coverage made sense. That was before U.S. employers faced determined global competition, U.S. workers changed jobs seven or eight times by the age of 35, and American society became more mobile. It surely doesn't make sense today.

I believe you cannot fix American health care without changing our system of employer-based health coverage and the Federal tax breaks that lubricate it. I believe you cannot fix American health care without changing the incentives that drive our choices and our behavior. Not a State in the Union has the power to bring this about. We in the Senate do.

In a few days, after some additional consultation with colleagues, I will introduce legislation that offers a fresh and different approach to fixing health care in America. I call the legislation the Healthy Americans Act, and it is based on four judgments about health care I have made.

First, Democrats have been correct in saying that to fix health care everybody must be covered. This concept, of course, is known as universal coverage. Republicans, in my view, have been correct in saying there must be more personal responsibility and personal involvement in making health care choices than there is today.

Second, there is a model for fixing health care that every single Senator--every Member of Congress--knows something about. It is the system that serves Members of Congress and their families, offering the Members of this body high-quality, affordable, private health coverage with lots of choice.

Third, America doesn't have health care at all; it has sick care. For example, Medicare Part A will write checks for thousands of dollars so that a senior can be treated in the hospital after they have had a heart attack or a stroke. Medicare Part B--the part of the program that covers outpatient services--provides no incentives for changing the behavior that led to the chronic illness and landed the senior citizen in the hospital. Certainly, it is clear that preventing disease, not just treating disease, must be a bigger part of America's health care future.

Fourth, in my view, you cannot fix American health care if you hurt the middle class who have coverage in order to help those who do not. To fix American health care, you must prove that all Americans have the opportunity to get ahead, starting with their first paycheck under a new health care plan--the Healthy Americans Act that I have drafted and has been posed at my Web site at wyden.senate.gov. Included at this site is a written evaluation of the legislation, done by the Lewin Group. The Lewin Group has been called the gold standard of health care actuarial data.

Their evaluation is clear. Under the Healthy Americans Act, all Americans can be guaranteed a lifetime of private health coverage, at least as good as their Member of Congress receives, for no more than our country spends on health care today. In addition, fixing American health care can be done more quickly than imagined--within 2 years after a reform law is passed--and produce more than $4 billion in savings in the first year, while expanding coverage.

The next chart is especially important because it shows that the Healthy Americans Act will slow the rate of growth in health care spending by almost $1.5 trillion over the next 10 years. The distinguished Presiding Officer is an expert in foreign affairs and our policy with Iraq. I am sure that as he looks at the chart, he can see that, according to the Lewin Group, the amount of money that would be saved in slowing the rate of growth in health care spending is several times--threefold--the amount of money our country has spent on the war in Iraq.

Mr. President, it doesn't take long to explain how the Healthy Americans Act works. It starts by going where Arnold Schwarzenegger and Mitt Romney would not. It cuts the link between health insurance and employment altogether. Under the Healthy Americans Act, businesses paying for employee health premiums are required to increase their workers' paychecks by the amount they spent last year on their health coverage. Federal tax law is changed to hold the worker harmless for the extra compensation, and the worker is required to purchase private coverage through an exchange in their State that forces insurance companies to offer simplified, standardized coverage, and prohibits them from engaging in price discrimination.

Now, requiring employers to cash out their health premiums, as I propose in the Healthy Americans Act, is good for both employers and workers. With health premiums going up 11 percent this year, employers are going to be glad to be exempt from these increases. With the extra money in their paycheck, workers have a new incentive to shop for their health care and hold down their cost. If a worker in Virginia can save a few hundred dollars on their health care purchase, they can use that money so that one of the constituents of the Presiding Officer can be on their way to Oregon to get in some sensational fishing.

In addition, the Healthy Americans Act is easy to administer and guarantees lifetime health security. Once you have signed up with a plan through an exchange in the State in which you live, that is it; you have completed the administrative process. Even if you lose your job or you go bankrupt, you can never have your coverage taken away. Sign up, and the premium you pay for the plan and all of the administrative activities are handled through the tax system. For those who cannot afford private coverage, the Healthy Americans Act subsidizes their purchases.

Businesses that have not been able to afford health coverage for their workers, under the new approach, will pay a fee--one that is tiered to their size and revenue, with some paying as little as 2 percent of the national average premium amount per worker for that basic benefit package. Mike Roach, the owner of the 8-person Paloma clothing firm in Portland, OR, is a 30-year member of the National Federation of Independent Businesses, and he was instrumental in ensuring that this legislation was small business friendly every step of the way.

Mr. President, that is pretty much it, in terms of how the Healthy Americans Act actually works. It will be easy to administer, locally controlled, with guaranteed coverage as good as your Member of Congress gets; and on top of it, there is a model for delivering it that the distinguished Presiding Officer and everybody else in this body knows about. Page 12 of the Lewin report on my Web site shows how the Healthy Americans Act expands coverage for millions of people, guaranteeing health benefits as good as their Member of Congress gets, while saving $4.5 billion in health spending in the first year. Money is saved by reducing the administrative costs of insurance, reducing cost shifting, and preventing those needless hospital emergency room visits. Also, there are substantial incentives that come about because insurance companies would have to compete for the business of consumers, who would have a new incentive to hold down health costs, which I have already described as the Virginian's opportunity to go fishing in Oregon.

There are other parts of the Healthy Americans Act I wish to describe briefly.

As the name of the legislation suggests, I believe strongly that fixing American health care requires a new ethic of health care prevention, a sharp new focus in keeping our citizens well, and trying to keep them from falling victim to skyrocketing rates of increase in diabetes, heart attack, and strokes.

Spending on these chronic illnesses is soaring, and it is especially sad to see so many children and seniors fall victim to these diseases. Yet, many Government programs and private insurance devote most of their attention to treating Americans after they are ill and give short shrift to wellness.

Under the Healthy Americans Act, there will be for the first time significant new incentives for all Americans to stay healthy. They are voluntary incentives, but ones that I think will make a real difference in building a national new ethic of wellness and health care prevention.

Parents who enroll children in wellness programs will be eligible for discounts in their own premiums. Instead of mandating that parents take youngsters to various health programs--and maybe they do and maybe they don't--the Healthy Americans Act says when a parent takes a child to one of those wellness programs, the parent would be eligible to get a discount on the parent's health premiums.

Under the Healthy Americans Act, employers who financially support health care prevention for their workers get incentives for doing that as well. Medicare is authorized to reduce outpatient Part B premiums so as to reward seniors trying to reduce their cholesterol, lose weight, or decrease the risk of stroke. It has never been done before. For example, Part B of Medicare, the outpatient part, doesn't offer any incentives for older Americans to change their behavior. Everybody pays the same Medicare Part B premium right now. The Healthy Americans Act proposes we change that and ensures that if a senior from Virginia or Oregon or elsewhere is involved in a wellness program, in health care prevention efforts, like smoking cessation, they could get a lower Part B premium for doing that.

The preventive health efforts I have described are promoted through new

voluntary incentives under the Healthy Americans Act, not heavy-handed mandates. Under the Healthy Americans Act, there is no national nanny established under the legislation to watch who is hitting the snack food bowl.

What this legislation says is--let's make it more attractive for people to stay healthy, to change their behaviors, to promote the kind of wellness practices we all know about but somehow don't seem to find time to actually get done in our hectic schedules.

Finally, and most importantly, the Healthy Americans Act does not harm those who have coverage in order to help those who do nothing. The legislation makes clear that all Americans retain the right to purchase as much health care coverage as they want. All Americans will enjoy true health security with the Healthy Americans Act, a lifetime guarantee of coverage at least as good as their Member of Congress receives.

Most American families will obtain this coverage with either their premiums reduced from what they pay today or for less than a dollar a day more. That can all be seen in the Lewin chart as No. 10 at my Web site. In addition, all Americans benefit from the reduced administrative costs the legislation produces, the insurance reforms, and, of course, the new focus on prevention.

I am now going to explain briefly how care for the poor is handled under the Healthy Americans Act and why this is good for both low- income people and taxpayers. This is especially important in light of a recent article in the health policy journal, ``Health Affairs.''

This article points out that more than half of the Nation's uninsured are ineligible for public programs such as Medicaid, but do not have the money to purchase coverage for themselves.

At present, for most poor people to receive health benefits, they have to go out and try to squeeze themselves into one of the categories that entitles them to care. So what we have, Mr. President, in Virginia, in Oregon, and elsewhere, is citizens trying to crunch themselves into one of these boxes, one of these categories that might make them eligible for health care in Virginia or Oregon.

As former Oregon Gov. John Kitzhaber has noted, there are more than 20 different categories of Medicaid. Administrating all of this takes funds, in my view, that ought to be spent caring for poor folks in America.

Under the Healthy Americans Act, low-income people will receive private health coverage, coverage that is as good as a Member of Congress gets, automatically. Like everyone else, they will sign up through the exchange in their State. When they are working, the premiums they owe are withheld from their paycheck. If they lose their job, there is an automatic adjustment in their withholding.

In addition, under the Healthy Americans Act, it will be more attractive for doctors and other health care providers to care for the poor. Those who are now in underfunded programs, such as Medicaid, are going to be able to have private insurance that pays doctors and other providers commercial rates which are traditionally higher than Medicaid reimbursement rates.

Because low-income children and the disabled are so vulnerable, if Medicaid provides benefits that are not included in the kind of package Members of Congress get, then those low-income folks would be entitled to get the additional benefits from the Medicaid program in their State.

I am now going to explain how Medicare is strengthened by the Healthy Americans Act.

As the largest Federal health program, Medicare's financial status is far more fragile than Social Security. Two-thirds of Medicare spending is now devoted to about 5 percent of the elderly population. Those are the seniors with chronic illness and the seniors who need compassionate end-of-life health care. The Healthy Americans Act strengthens Medicare for both seniors and taxpayers in both of these areas.

In addition to reducing Medicare's outpatient premiums for seniors who adopt healthy lifestyles and reduce the prospect of chronic illness, primary care reimbursements for doctors and other providers get a boost under the Healthy Americans Act. Good primary care for seniors also reduces the likelihood of chronic illness that goes unmanaged. This reimbursement boost is sure to increase access to care for seniors--and I see them all over, in Oregon and elsewhere--who are having difficulty finding doctors who will treat them.

To better meet the needs of seniors suffering from multiple chronic illnesses, the Healthy Americans Act promotes better coordination of their care by allowing a special management fee to providers who better assist seniors with these especially important services.

Hospice law is changed so that seniors who are terminally ill do not have to give up care that allows them to treat their illness in order to get hospice. In addition, the Healthy Americans Act empowers all our citizens wishing to make their own end-of-life care decisions.

The legislation requires hospitals and other facilities to give patients the choice of stating in writing how they would want their doctor and other health care providers to handle various end-of-life care decisions.

The tragic case of the late Terri Schiavo came before the Senate before the distinguished Presiding Officer of the Senate had joined this body, but I was particularly struck during that debate and afterwards how strongly the American people feel about making sure that the patient and not Government gets to drive all of the decisions surrounding their end-of-life care. Under the Healthy Americans Act, that would be the norm rather than the exception.

In writing this legislation, I spent a lot of time looking back-- looking back literally over 60 years--since Harry Truman tried to fix health care in the 81st Congress in 1945. I tried to make sure, particularly, that the lessons of 1994 were ones the Senate would pick up on and make sure that the same mistakes were not committed again.

For example, in 1994, the last time this Senate considered fixing health care, the principal piece of legislation before the Senate was 1,369 pages long. The Healthy Americans Act posted at my Web site saves a lot of Oregon trees by coming in about 1,200 pages shorter.

In 1994, getting to universal coverage was, in effect, put before securing the savings to responsibly finance an expansion of coverage. The Healthy Americans Act, as noted in the Lewin report, generates billions of dollars in savings in the first year as the legislation is implemented.

In 1994, the principal method of financing universal coverage was an employer mandate. The Healthy Americans Act requires no such employer mandate, provides financial relief for employers competing in tough global markets, and still ensures that every business takes some measure for financing health care in a way that is going to allow those businesses to be competitive in tough global markets. In 1994, there was never a coalition of employers, union leaders, and patient advocates behind a specific piece of legislation. Now, Andy Stern, president of the 1.8 million-worker Service Employees International Union; Steve Burd, CEO of Safeway with more than 200,000 workers, patient advocates representing various points of view, and employers of all sizes have joined behind the Healthy Americans Act.

There is also a moral question I would like the Senate to consider. Given what I have just outlined, how can this Senate justify denying all Americans health care coverage as good as Members of Congress receive? The Lewin report proves it can be done--proves it can be done without spending more money than the country spends now and, in fact, can be done saving more than $4 billion in the very first year.

There is a model for putting reforms in place: the system enjoyed by all the Senators serving in this body today. Fixing health care under the Healthy Americans Act will reduce administrative hassle and expense and allow all our citizens finally--finally--to go to bed at night without fear of losing essential medical care.

I want 2007 to be the year when the Senate, as well as the various State governments, step up on health care. The States deserve our support, but they cannot possibly remedy the health problems created by Federal leaders in this city more than 60 years ago. The Senate can provide this remedy. Here on this floor, the Senate can

acknowledge that the employer-based system of health coverage that worked back in 1945 no longer makes sense for 2007. We can acknowledge, as I have done today, that I think Democrats are right about making sure that everybody gets covered and Republicans are right about promoting personal responsibility and more personal involvement in making health care choices. We can end 13 years of ducking on health care, 13 years of slapping Band-Aids on health care, and roll up our sleeves and go to work. A lot of it--and I know the distinguished President of the Senate has been to many community meetings in his home State of Virginia--simply means following up on what constituents say at home.

Every time health care comes up when I have community meetings somebody usually says, ``Well, I guess we ought to go to what is called a single payer system. You know, one where the Government essentially runs it and you don't have these private insurance companies.''

After somebody at a town meeting says we ought to have a single payer system, somebody else says, ``No, we already voted on that.'' In fact, Oregonians did. They voted against a single payer system by more than 3 to 1 just a few years ago.

But the other speakers say, ``We don't want all that Government. We don't want the Government to make all the decisions.''

So after a bit, somebody raises their hand at one of my townhall meetings and says, ``Ron, what we want is what you Members of Congress have. We want health care coverage like you have.''

Then everybody in the room shakes their head in agreement.

So much of what I propose in the Healthy Americans Act comes from those townhall meetings that I hold in all of Oregon's 36 counties. I have an approach that guarantees benefits like Members of Congress have; that is delivered in the same way; and that can actually be implemented with the very first paycheck that a worker gets under the new system.

Part of the reason I have written this legislation as I have has been to ensure that the Congress and the Federal Government could pick up some lost credibility on health care. My sense is that after the debate of 1994 on health care in America a lot of Americans said: The United States Congress can't figure out how to put together a two-car parade let alone a reform that involves one-seventh of the American economy.

That is why I have written this legislation so it can be understood and the effects can be seen from the time the very first paychecks go out under the legislation. The legislation works in a way that will be attractive to both workers and employers.

So I have spent a lot of time listening to my constituents as I brought together the various principles that are contained in the Healthy Americans Act. I know colleagues in this body have other ideas.

I would like to wrap up by simply saying I think health care has been studied enough. It has been commissioned. It has been blue-ribboned. It has been the subject of white papers, blue papers, pink papers, papers of every possible description. It is time for the Senate to act. The Senate has ducked on health care for almost 13 years. Health care and Iraq are the driving issues that our citizens care about most. It is time to fix health care, and I think with the Healthy Americans Act, this body can get the job done.

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

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time today from 4:30 to 5:30 be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, and that 10 minutes of the majority's time be allocated to Senator Feingold.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the majority leader be recognized at 12:30 p.m. today.

Mr. President, I note the absence of a quorum.

I move to reconsider the vote.