Floor Statements

Madam President, I came to the floor to talk about legislating. I was struck, in fact, by the comments recently because what I am here to talk about is essentially the yeoman's bipartisanship we have seen with Senator Stabenow and Senator Roberts on the farm bill. I am going to talk about some specific ideas, each of which I believe could win bipartisan support and help strengthen the legislation as we go forward in the Senate.

I believe it is hard to overstate the importance of writing the best possible farm bill in the Senate. When America desperately needs more jobs, and 1 in every 12 American jobs is tied to agriculture, this bill is an opportunity for the private sector to grow more jobs. When obesity rates are driving the American health care challenge, this bill can promote healthier eating without extra cost to taxpayers. When we are concerned about the threat to our treasured lands and air and water, this bill is our primary conservation program. When our rural communities are especially hard hit, and the Presiding Officer knows about this because she has a lot of rural country in her State, these rural communities are walking on an economic tightrope, and this bill can be a lifeline.

I spent much of last week in rural Oregon. In my State, Oregonians do a lot of things well, but what we do best is grow things--lots of things. Oregon grows more than 250 different crops, including everything from alfalfa seed to mint and blueberries. Several weeks ago, the Oregon Extension Service reported that agricultural sales in my home State increased more than 19 percent in 2011.

Agriculture in Oregon is now more than a $5 billion industry annually, and much of this is driven by high prices for wheat and cattle and dairy products, fruits, vegetables, and other specialty crops. The fact is, agriculture is the lodestar to prosperity for many rural Oregon communities. Nationwide, there are many other towns in a similar position to the small communities I have the honor to represent in the Senate.

That is what is apropos about this talk and the need for bipartisanship. Senator Schumer listed a number of these bipartisan areas. I consulted with the chair of the Agriculture Committee, Senator Stabenow, and the ranking member, Senator Roberts, who I also served with in the other body. After getting their counsel, I selected 28 Oregonians, from every corner of my State and across all types of agriculture, to help serve as an advisory committee on ways to improve the economic opportunities for Oregon, specifically through this bill.

We have the good fortune to have the committee chaired by Mrs. Karla Chambers, who owns a farm in the Willamette Valley, Stahlbush Farms, and also Mike Thorne, a wheat farmer in eastern Oregon.

From the outset, this advisory committee did not talk at all about politics, did not talk about whether there was a Democratic way to write a farm bill or a Republican way to write a farm bill. What they did talk about was the importance of the issues I have just outlined: jobs, health care, conservation, rural communities. That is what they spent their time focused on and particularly the jobs issue was central to their discussion.

There are about 38,000 farms in my home State which roughly support 234,000 jobs. That is about 11 percent of our State's employment. As much as 80 percent of the agricultural goods produced in Oregon are sold out of State. Half of that is exported to foreign countries. That is especially important to me because I chair the trade subcommittee of the Senate Finance Committee. So what I have taken as the centerpiece of my approach to agriculture and to our country's economy is that we ought to do our very best to: grow things in the United States, to add value to them in the United States, and then ship them somewhere.

It is especially important for Oregon agriculture. As I just noted, 80 percent of the agricultural goods that are produced in our State are sold out of State.

Abroad, our producers are doing very well. Nationally, each $1 billion in agricultural exports is tied to approximately 8,400 American jobs. These growing overseas markets represent a

way to create and sustain good-paying jobs that rely on export sales. In fact, agriculture is one of the only sectors with a trade surplus, and in 2011, it boasted a surplus totaling $42.5 billion--the highest annual surplus on record.

That is why I was honored to have a chance--when Chairman Baucus was tied up in discussions with respect to the super committee--to manage a significant part of the debate on the three recently passed free-trade agreements, which again give us a chance, as I have indicated, to build on that proposition that I have outlined, where we grow things here, add value to them here, and then ship them somewhere else.

Nothing says that more than giving those opportunities to producers from Oregon to Florida. They sell their fruits and vegetables, their wheat, their beef, their nursery crops, and other high-value products at home and abroad. The farm bill continues those programs that American producers rely on to help market their goods in foreign markets. I think it is important again to stress the bipartisanship associated with making sure there are bountiful opportunities for American agriculture and particularly for Oregon agricultural goods.

The second area my agriculture advisory committee focused on was stressing the importance of healthy nutrition here at home. Of course, the USDA, our Department of Agriculture, has recommended eating five fresh fruits and vegetables daily.

What that means is that from Burns, OR, to Bangor, ME, farm programs need to make it easier for those with low incomes to be able to eat healthier. There never ought to be a tradeoff between health and affordable food. So I think we have to look at some fresh approaches to promote healthy nutrition in this country. I believe it is not just an economic threat to our economy, it is also a national security threat to our Nation because we have seen, regrettably, that many Americans who would like to wear the uniform of the United States, patriots, have not been able to pass the health standards necessary to serve in our military.

In the past three decades, obesity rates have quadrupled for children ages 6 to 11. More than 40 percent of Americans are expected to be obese by 2030. The Centers for Disease Control reports that in 2008 alone, the United States spent $147 billion on medical care related to obesity. Obesity is the top medical reason one in four young people cannot join the military, and it has been identified by the Department of Defense as a threat to national security. It doesn't have to be this way.

I wish to outline some specific ideas for changing that and to promote good health in our country without adding extra costs to taxpayers. One opportunity for change is through the Farm to School Program. Again, without costing taxpayers additional money, it ought to be easier for delicious pears, cherries, and other healthy produce, grown just a few miles down the road, to make it into our schools. This ought to be a national approach. Schools from Springfield, OR, to Savannah, GA, currently purchase their fruits and vegetables from USDA--the Department of Agriculture--warehouses, which may be hundreds of miles away. Many of our farmers and our producers would like to sell their goods to local schools, and many schools would like to source their produce locally. The farm bill ought to promote that.

When I was in Oregon last week, I had a chance to meet with the management of Harry & David. They are a major employer in my State, and an Oregon pear producer. They told me they want to sell their fruit to schools down the street, but instead a complex maze of Federal rules and regulations has created a hassle for them, and the process sounds like bureaucratic water torture. So I am going to offer an amendment that would make it less of a hassle for producers such as Harry & David and farmers to sell directly to local schools, all without spending additional Federal dollars.

A second opportunity to improve our Nation's health lies with the SNAP program, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, better known as food stamps. This program currently spends over $70 billion a year. This is the big expenditure in the farm bill, and there is no way to really determine whether it promotes good nutrition. Think of all of the possibilities for helping our country, all the possible benefits if the SNAP program did more to improve nutritional outcomes for those who use the program.

Let me make clear that I am not for cutting benefits. I understand the crucial lifeline this program provides for millions of our people. What I am interested in doing is seeing that, through that $70 billion, it is possible to improve nutritional outcomes, all while getting the best value out of that enormous expenditure.

One of the ways we could do it would be to allow States to obtain a waiver from the SNAP program when they bring their farmers, their retailers, their health specialists, and their beneficiaries together and say: We have a consensus for improving the nutritional outcomes in our State, for those on the Food Stamp Program, the SNAP program. They ought to be able to get a waiver in order to do that and help us produce more good health in America. That is not some kind of national nanny program. That is not telling people they can only eat this or that. It is just common sense to have farmers, retailers, those on the program, and health specialists look, for example, to try to create some voluntarily incentive to promote better nutrition with this enormous expenditure, and I intend to offer an amendment to do that.

A third opportunity for improvement is through what is known as gleaning. Historically, gleaners gathered leftover produce from the fields, but today gleaners play a crucial role in reducing the staggering amount of food that goes to waste each year. At a time when food waste is the single largest category of waste in our local landfills--more than 34 million tons of food--again, without spending extra taxpayer money, we can do more to ensure that this unwanted food is used to tackle hunger in America.

Led by the dedicated work of local food banks, many are striving to put America's food bounty to better use. In Portland, OR, Tracy Oseran runs a wonderful nonprofit organization known as Urban Gleaners. They are poised to collect surplus food--hundreds of thousands of pounds of food--from grocers, restaurants, parties, and all kinds of social organizations, and they redistribute those hundreds of thousands of pounds of food to organizations that serve the hungry. Urban Gleaners is doing great work, but they could be doing a lot more.

Without spending a dime of extra money, we can advocate for gleaners all across America by making it possible for them to receive loans through the Microloan Program. If someone is trying to set up a gleaning program in a small town and they have to borrow, say, $20,000 to start a refrigeration program to preserve the quality of the food, let's make it possible for the gleaners to do that.

I am not proposing--and I discussed this with the chair of the committee, Senator Stabenow, and Senator Roberts, the ranking minority member--to allocate one additional dime to the program. I think it is a fine program. I simply want to say that when we have gleaners in our country who are telling us about the enormous amount of food that is still wasted despite their tremendous efforts, let's not pass up an opportunity to, with this bill, make it possible to promote gleaning in our country.

To produce the healthy food needed to feed America, we need fertile agricultural land, and conservation plays a central role in that. Roughly 28 percent of Oregon's land mass is devoted to agricultural production. Maintaining this land is crucial for our long-term productivity. For more than half a century, the farm bill has supported infrastructure modernization and conservation projects. They give, once again, the opportunity for collaboration, and that is key to our natural resources.

I see my friend from Arizona, Senator McCain, here. We talked about doing this in the forestry area years ago. We ought to be promoting collaborative projects to boost rural economies. It is the Oregon way, and we ought to build on that in this farm bill as well.

The time is also ripe to promote farmers markets and locally grown food, which will lead to greater awareness of local markets, roadside stands, and community-supported agriculture.

This farm bill expands those opportunities, and I think these types of local initiatives give us the opportunity to change the trajectory--the tragic and staggering trajectory--of obesity in this country, and to ensure the viability of these programs, the land required to produce nutritious foods must be addressed.

I plan to offer, as I have indicated in these comments, a number of amendments to the farm bill, each of which I have discussed with the chair of the committee, Senator Stabenow, and ranking member, Senator Roberts.

The farm-to-school amendment that I will offer would not spend additional taxpayer money, but it would make it easier for schools to purchase locally for the breakfast, lunches, and snacks they serve children.

My second amendment would allow States across this country to get a waiver under the SNAP program, so they can consult with their farmers, their retailers, their health specialists, and those who use it, and try to come up with a way to get more good health and nutrition out of the $70 billion that is spent on the program. States ought to have an opportunity to do that so that the SNAP program can be a launch pad for healthier eating rather than just a conveyor belt for calories. With a waiver, States with innovation and effective ideas could improve nutritional outcomes and put their good ideas into action.

Third, I intend to offer an amendment--again, it doesn't spend additional taxpayer money--to promote gleaning through the Microloan Program.

Finally, based on the recommendations of the Institute of Medicine, I will offer an amendment to make it possible to advance some of the recommendations of the Institute of Medicine to look at the relationship between agriculture policy, the diet of the average American, and how we can reduce childhood obesity. This amendment would give us a chance to advance the recommendations of the Institute of Medicine. They have made a number of thoughtful proposals that I think will give us a chance to reduce obesity and promote our national security, and we certainly should pursue them through this farm bill.

The last comment I will make is that I think Oregonians got it right, and I think we ought to be building on the work done by Senator Stabenow and Senator Roberts. At a crucial time in American history, this bill can help us grow more jobs, it can help us improve the health of the people of our country without spending additional money, and it is an opportunity to protect our treasured land and air and water. Finally, it is a lifeline for rural communities--these communities that I have described as walking on an economic tight rope.

I intend to work with my colleagues on a bipartisan basis. I have heard all this talk about how the legislating is over. We ought to build on the work that has been done already and get this important bill across the finish line because it will be good for our economy, for our national security, and it will be good for our health and for our environment.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, yesterday I joined with Chairman Bingaman to introduce legislation to address an urgent threat to America's national forests: the lack of resources to fight serious wildfires that at this very moment are burning on more than 300,000 acres in our country. To date--and it is certainly early in the fire season--more than 830,000 acres already have burned.

The heart of the problem is, as the fires have gotten bigger, the Forest Service airtanker fleet to fight these fires has gotten smaller. In 2006, the Forest Service had 44 large airtankers under contract in their fleet. Last week, they had just 11 large airtankers under contract, and 10 of those averaged 50 years of age.

After the very tragic events of this past weekend--in which one of those airtankers crashed and its courageous pilots were killed and another had a failure of its landing gear and sustained serious damage--the Forest Service is down to nine large airtankers. This is an extraordinarily serious problem and a solution is long overdue.

The reason I have come to the floor this afternoon is that Congress has an opportunity to expedite what could be the beginning of a solution. The Forest Service now is ready to begin awarding contracts for the next generation of airtankers, consistent with their large airtanker modernization strategy.

On May 25, as is required by law, under 41 U.S.C. 3903(d), the Forest Service gave Congress a 30-day notification of its intent to award four multiyear contracts, which contain cancellation ceilings in excess of $10 million and require congressional notification.

These four contracts would, in effect, begin to fill the Federal Government's need for large airtankers to fight wildfires. The 30-day waiting period is simply delaying urgently needed action. Without congressional action, these contracts will not be awarded until June 25. My view is, with hundreds of thousands of acres burning and a severely depleted capacity for sending airtankers to battle these fires, I see nothing that can be served by the Congress sitting on its hands and waiting for those 30 days to expire.

The Forest Service requested that Congress waive the requirement to wait the full 30 days to award these important contracts. The sooner the Forest Service can award these contracts, the sooner the companies that receive the awards can begin to deliver those next-generation airtankers and get them out fighting the fires.

I wish to be clear that I do not know the details of these contracts and have no idea as to which companies that submitted bids are going to be the successful recipients, but I do know the Forest Service has complied with its obligation to notify the Congress. Congress has been notified with the required information, and I just fail to understand how the country is going to benefit by simply letting time pass. I urge my colleagues to see how important and how serious this fire situation is and approve the critical legislation I have introduced with Chairman Bingaman.

At this very moment, there are 11 uncontained large fires nationally, 152 new fires that have been reported in just the last 24 hours, and dire predictions about hot and dry conditions combining with strong winds, looming thunderstorms, and arid lands across much of our landscape. All these factors contribute to a dangerous fire situation on the ground. Yet, as we speak, the Forest Service now has only nine airtankers to assist those hard-working fire crews. Eight of those tankers are getting to the point where they ought to be considered museums in the sky.

While the Forest Service can and should use all possible assets--such as helicopters and innovative options such as the 20,000 gallon Very Large Airtankers--and the agency is likely to need to call in the National Guard, the large airtankers remain a critically important tool for fire suppression. In fact, the firefighting agencies mobilized airtankers 153 percent above the

10-year average in 2011. Yet these planes needed to assist on-the- ground firefighters have dwindled to the dire shortage--they have atrophied to the point I have described this afternoon.

This lack of resources is coming at a time when the Nation's forests are very vulnerable to fire. The fire season is early, but we are already seeing the production of record-breaking fires. Fire seasons are getting longer and they are more severe and we are seeing more and more of what the professional foresters called a megafire.

From 2000 to 2008, at least 10 States had fires of record-breaking size. The Forest Service indicated in its airtanker mobilization strategy that the agency will need up to 28 of these airtankers in order to adequately battle fire threats. So the Forest Service says we need 28. As of this moment, this afternoon, there are only nine.

I am asking today for the Senate to recognize the seriousness of the threat and let the Forest Service proceed in awarding these new contracts as rapidly as possible. The legislation Chairman Bingaman and I have introduced would enable the agency to do just that and begin to tackle this extraordinarily serious health problem.

In closing, I wish to express my thanks to all of America's courageous and dedicated firefighters. They put themselves in harm's way to protect our communities, and we should be grateful to them and to the pilots and companies and agency personnel who tirelessly battles these fires. I believe, on behalf of every Member of the Senate, it is appropriate to express our deepest condolences to the families and colleagues and friends of the recently deceased pilots. I hope by advancing the legislation I have described this afternoon, Congress will be sending a message to those courageous firefighters and those with whom they work that the Congress is beginning to put in place a system that would provide them real relief.

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

Madam President, on June 6 the Council for a Livable World will celebrate its 50th anniversary. In a time when our country continues to face a host of global threats, it is important that we recognize the vital work that the Council for a Livable World carries out each and every day to mitigate these threats, and to make our world a more peaceful, a more livable place.

The Council for a Livable World was founded in 1962 by nuclear physicist Leo Szilard and other scientists. Szilard, of course, is famous for advocating for the creation of the Manhattan Project that helped create the first atomic weapon. In the aftermath of WWII, he, and others that saw the destructive power of atomic weapons became concerned about their use and spread.

Although times have changed since then--Russia has replaced the Soviet Union, the Cold War is over--the threat of nuclear catastrophe is still ever-present. Terrorists seek these weapons of mass destruction, and nefarious regimes such as North Korea continue to threaten the world with their own nuclear weapons. The Council recognizes this continuously changing threat environment and believes that it is short-sighted and counterproductive to continue relying on Cold War measures, such as an overwhelming nuclear arsenal that could destroy the world many times over.

As former Council Chairman Senator Gary Hart said, ``you must properly understand what security is and how it is to be achieved, or all the military spending in the world will not make you more secure.'' Those words rang true then, and they continue to ring true now.

The Council for a Livable World believes, like I do, that the United States must work toward a ``world free of nuclear weapons.'' They expressly advocate for deep reductions, and the eventual elimination, of nuclear weapons.

This advocacy leads to real, tangible results, and not just results in the nuclear weapon reductions arena. Some notable accomplishments include the ratification of the Chemical Weapons Convention and Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces, Conventional Forces in Europe, and the first Strategic Arms Reduction treaty; establishing a U.S. nuclear testing moratorium in 1992; limiting the deployment of the MX missile; eliminating funding for the nuclear ``Bunker Buster,'' and ratification of the New START Treaty in 2011.

So I hope everyone will join me today in recognizing the Council for a Livable World and the important work that they do to make our world a better place. Congratulations on the past 50 years and good luck in the 50 years that lay ahead. Maybe by then our children will be living, finally, in a world free of nuclear weapons.''

Mr. President, right now, the Obama Administration is in the process of negotiating what might prove to be the most far-reaching economic agreement since the World Trade Organization was established nearly twenty years ago.

The goal of this agreement--known as the Trans Pacific Partnership, TPP--is to economically bind together the economies of the Asia Pacific. It involves countries ranging from Australia, Singapore, Vietnam, Peru, Chile and the United States and holds the potential to include many more countries, like Japan, Korea, Canada, and Mexico. If successful, the agreement will set norms for the trade of goods and services and includes disciplines related to intellectual property, access to medicines, Internet governance, investment, government procurement, worker rights and environmental standards.

If agreed to, TPP will set the tone for our nation's economic future for years to come, impacting the way Congress intervenes and acts on behalf of the American people it represents.

It may be the U.S. Trade Representative's, USTR, current job to negotiate trade agreements on behalf of the United States, but Article 1 Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution gives Congress--not the USTR or any other member of the Executive Branch--the responsibility of regulating foreign commerce. It was our Founding Fathers' intention to ensure that the laws and policies that govern the American people take into account the interests of all the American people, not just a privileged few.

Yet, the majority of Congress is being kept in the dark as to the substance of the TPP negotiations, while representatives of U.S. corporations--like Halliburton, Chevron, PHRMA, Comcast, and the Motion Picture Association of America--are being consulted and made privy to details of the agreement. As the Office of the USTR will tell you, the President gives it broad power to keep information about the trade policies it advances and negotiates, secret. Let me tell you, the USTR is making full use of this authority.

As the Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee's Subcommittee on International Trade, Customs, and Global Competitiveness, my office is responsible for conducting oversight over the USTR and trade negotiations. To do that, I asked that my staff obtain the proper security credentials to view the information that USTR keeps confidential and secret. This is material that fully describes what the

USTR is seeking in the TPP talks on behalf of the American people and on behalf of Congress. More than two months after receiving the proper security credentials, my staff is still barred from viewing the details of the proposals that USTR is advancing.

We hear that the process by which TPP is being negotiated has been a model of transparency. I disagree with that statement. And not just because the Staff Director of the Senate subcommittee responsible for oversight of international trade continues to be denied access to substantive and detailed information that pertains to the TPP talks.

Congress passed legislation in 2002 to form the Congressional Oversight Group, or COG, to foster more USTR consultation with Congress. I was a senator in 2002. I voted for that law and I can tell you the intention of that law was to ensure that USTR consulted with more Members of Congress not less.

In trying to get to the bottom of why my staff is being denied information, it seems that some in the Executive Branch may be interpreting the law that established the COG to mean that only the few Members of Congress who belong to the COG can be given access to trade negotiation information, while every other Member of Congress, and their staff, must be denied such access. So, this is not just a question of whether or not cleared staff should have access to information about the TPP talks, this is a question of whether or not the administration believes that most Members of Congress can or should have a say in trade negotiations.

Again, having voted for that law, I strongly disagree with such an interpretation and find it offensive that some would suggest that a law meant to foster more consultation with Congress is intended to limit it. But given that the TPP negotiations are currently underway and I-- and the vast majority of my colleagues and their staff--continue to be denied a full understanding of what the USTR is seeking in the agreement, we do not have time to waste on a protracted legal battle over this issue. Therefore, I am introducing legislation to clarify the intent of the COG statute.

The legislation, I propose, is straightforward. It gives all Members of Congress and staff with appropriate clearance access to the substance of trade negotiations. Finally, Members of Congress who are responsible for conducting oversight over the enforcement of trade agreements will be provided information by the Executive Branch indicating whether our trading partners are living up to their trade obligations. Put simply, this legislation would ensure that the representatives elected by the American people are afforded the same level of influence over our nation's policies as the paid representatives of PHRMA, Halliburton and the Motion Picture Association.

My intent is to do everything I can to see that this legislation is advanced quickly and becomes law, so that elected Members of Congress can do what the Constitution requires and what their constituents expect.

Mr. President, right now, the Obama Administration is in the process of negotiating what might prove to be the most far-reaching economic agreement since the World Trade Organization was established nearly twenty years ago.

The goal of this agreement--known as the Trans Pacific Partnership, TPP--is to economically bind together the economies of the Asia Pacific. It involves countries ranging from Australia, Singapore, Vietnam, Peru, Chile and the United States and holds the potential to include many more countries, like Japan, Korea, Canada, and Mexico. If successful, the agreement will set norms for the trade of goods and services and includes disciplines related to intellectual property, access to medicines, Internet governance, investment, government procurement, worker rights and environmental standards.

If agreed to, TPP will set the tone for our nation's economic future for years to come, impacting the way Congress intervenes and acts on behalf of the American people it represents.

It may be the U.S. Trade Representative's, USTR, current job to negotiate trade agreements on behalf of the United States, but Article 1 Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution gives Congress--not the USTR or any other member of the Executive Branch--the responsibility of regulating foreign commerce. It was our Founding Fathers' intention to ensure that the laws and policies that govern the American people take into account the interests of all the American people, not just a privileged few.

Yet, the majority of Congress is being kept in the dark as to the substance of the TPP negotiations, while representatives of U.S. corporations--like Halliburton, Chevron, PHRMA, Comcast, and the Motion Picture Association of America--are being consulted and made privy to details of the agreement. As the Office of the USTR will tell you, the President gives it broad power to keep information about the trade policies it advances and negotiates, secret. Let me tell you, the USTR is making full use of this authority.

As the Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee's Subcommittee on International Trade, Customs, and Global Competitiveness, my office is responsible for conducting oversight over the USTR and trade negotiations. To do that, I asked that my staff obtain the proper security credentials to view the information that USTR keeps confidential and secret. This is material that fully describes what the

USTR is seeking in the TPP talks on behalf of the American people and on behalf of Congress. More than two months after receiving the proper security credentials, my staff is still barred from viewing the details of the proposals that USTR is advancing.

We hear that the process by which TPP is being negotiated has been a model of transparency. I disagree with that statement. And not just because the Staff Director of the Senate subcommittee responsible for oversight of international trade continues to be denied access to substantive and detailed information that pertains to the TPP talks.

Congress passed legislation in 2002 to form the Congressional Oversight Group, or COG, to foster more USTR consultation with Congress. I was a senator in 2002. I voted for that law and I can tell you the intention of that law was to ensure that USTR consulted with more Members of Congress not less.

In trying to get to the bottom of why my staff is being denied information, it seems that some in the Executive Branch may be interpreting the law that established the COG to mean that only the few Members of Congress who belong to the COG can be given access to trade negotiation information, while every other Member of Congress, and their staff, must be denied such access. So, this is not just a question of whether or not cleared staff should have access to information about the TPP talks, this is a question of whether or not the administration believes that most Members of Congress can or should have a say in trade negotiations.

Again, having voted for that law, I strongly disagree with such an interpretation and find it offensive that some would suggest that a law meant to foster more consultation with Congress is intended to limit it. But given that the TPP negotiations are currently underway and I-- and the vast majority of my colleagues and their staff--continue to be denied a full understanding of what the USTR is seeking in the agreement, we do not have time to waste on a protracted legal battle over this issue. Therefore, I am introducing legislation to clarify the intent of the COG statute.

The legislation, I propose, is straightforward. It gives all Members of Congress and staff with appropriate clearance access to the substance of trade negotiations. Finally, Members of Congress who are responsible for conducting oversight over the enforcement of trade agreements will be provided information by the Executive Branch indicating whether our trading partners are living up to their trade obligations. Put simply, this legislation would ensure that the representatives elected by the American people are afforded the same level of influence over our nation's policies as the paid representatives of PHRMA, Halliburton and the Motion Picture Association.

My intent is to do everything I can to see that this legislation is advanced quickly and becomes law, so that elected Members of Congress can do what the Constitution requires and what their constituents expect.

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

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

Mr. President, I believe the development of the Internet, its networks, and the digital economy are one of the great achievements of our age.

The Internet links humanity together, facilitating economic growth, bringing education and health resources to remote regions, reshaping societies and advancing human rights.

While networks foster innovation, job creation, and political and social progress, networks can also be used by actors with nefarious motives. It is in our national interest to deter, detect, and destroy real and viable cyber threats, to protect Americans and preserve the benefits of the Internet. Americans must not be afraid to go online.

The Internet works not just because it is open to all but because it is founded on the principle of trust. Users trust that their browsers are visiting real Web sites, not replicated ones. Internet commerce succeeds because people trust that their transactions are private and their financial information won't be shared with others. People trust the Internet because they believe their service providers work for them, not for their advertisers, not for scammers, and not for the government.

Congress's effort to develop a comprehensive approach to cybersecurity must not erode that trust. When Americans go online to consume digital services and goods, they must believe and know with some certainty that their privacy is adequately protected. The content that Americans consume must be at least as private as their library records, their video rentals, and book purchases in the brick-and- mortar world. Our law enforcement and intelligence agencies should not be free to monitor and catalog the speech of Americans just because it is online.

But the legislation passed by the other body, known as CISPA, would erode that trust. As an attempt to protect our networks from real cyber threats, CISPA is an example of what not to do. CISPA repeals important provisions of existing electronic surveillance laws that have been on the books for years, without instituting corresponding privacy, confidentiality, and civil liberty safeguards. It creates uncertainty in place of trust, it erodes statutory and constitutional civil rights protections, and it creates a surveillance regime in place of the targeted, nimble, cybersecurity program that is needed to truly protect our Nation.

Unfortunately, S. 2105, the bill before the Senate, shares some of these defects. Currently, Internet services and service providers have agreements with their customers that allow them to police and protect their networks and users. Rather than simply allowing these Internet companies to share information on users who violate their contracts and pose a security threat, the House and Senate proposals regrettably authorize a broad-based information-sharing regime that can operate with impunity. This would allow the personal data of individual Americans to be shared across a multitude of bureaucratic, military, and law enforcement agencies. This would take place regardless of the privacy agreements individual Americans have with their Internet service providers.

In fact, both the House and Senate bills subordinate all existing privacy rules and constitutional principles to the poorly defined interests of what is called cybersecurity.

These bills would allow law enforcement agencies to mine Internet users' personal data for evidence of acts entirely unrelated to cybersecurity. More than that, they would allow law enforcement to look for evidence of future crimes, opening the door to a dystopian world where law enforcement evaluates your Internet activities for the potential that you might commit a crime.

In establishing this massive new regime, these bills fail to create the necessary incentives for operators of critical networks to keep their networks secure.

It is a fundamental principle of cybersecurity policy that any network whose failure could result in a loss of

life or significant property should be physically isolated from the Internet. Unfortunately, many of our critical network operators have violated this principle in order to save money or streamline operations. This sort of gross negligence ought to be the first target in any cybersecurity program--not the privacy of individual Americans.

Congress could target this behavior with yet one more rule book and one more bureaucracy, creating a cybersecurity contractor full employment program. I am not, however, convinced this is a problem that requires that kind of solution.

At the same time, Congress should not allow our critical network operators to ignore best practices with impunity. It is vital they understand that any liability for a preventable cyber attack is their responsibility. There is not going to be a governmental bailout after the fact in the cybersecurity area. Shareholders and boards of directors must be vigilant and understand the risks to their investments. Executives must understand that ignoring critical cyber threats in the interest of cost savings and convenience will leave them personally exposed.

Internet providers and backbone operators clearly have a role in this fight. When they detect abnormal network activity or have a user violating their contract in a way that constitutes a cyber threat, they can and should inform our cyber defense officials. If it is necessary to grant them immunity to share this kind of information, the Congress could grant it--narrowly and with careful consideration.

Mr. President, there would be bipartisan support for the proposition that the Federal Government also has a significant role that does not necessarily require billing taxpayers for legions of private cybersecurity contractors. The Department of Defense, the Department of National Intelligence, Homeland Security, and the Justice Department-- four major parts of our government--all have cybersecurity specialists. The Congress ought to be promoting the cyber capabilities of these agencies and providing the resources that are needed to protect these networks. These Federal agencies should do a better job of consulting the private Internet companies to better understand the attacks that are occurring every day across the net.

Some of these steps may require legislation, but many can be carried out by responsible actors in the public and private sector without waiting for the Congress to act. However, the legislation before the Senate and the cybersecurity legislation that passed the other body leads our country away from the kind of commonsense approach to cybersecurity I have outlined this afternoon.

As they stand, these bills are an overreaction to a legitimate and understandable fear. The American people are going to respond by limiting their online activities. That would be a recipe to stifle speech, innovation, job creation, and social progress. I believe these bills will encourage the development of an industry that profits from fear and whose currency is Americans' private data. These bills create a cyber industrial complex that has an interest in preserving the problem to which it is the solution.

In terms of the process, the Senate ought to proceed in a way that is as open and collaborative as the Internet the Congress seeks to promote and protect. On substance, any cybersecurity bill must contain specific and clear descriptions of what types of data and when such data can be captured, with whom it can be shared, and under what circumstances. Anything not specifically covered ought to remain private. Privacy in the cybersecurity arena should be the default not the exception. Legal immunity to corporations that share information should be the exception not the rule and void if privacy protections or contracts are disregarded.

The Congress and the public must have the ability to know how any cybersecurity program that is established is to be implemented. That means routine public and unclassified reports and hearings to examine whether there were any unintended privacy or civil liberty impacts caused by the program. No secret law, Mr. President.

Bad Internet policy is increasingly premised on false choices. Earlier this year, during the consideration of the Protect IP Act and the Stop Online Piracy Act, the Congress was told again it had a false choice. The Congress was told it either could protect intellectual property or it could protect the integrity of the Internet. This was a false choice. I and others said so at the time because achieving one should not and does not require sacrificing the other.

Now the Congress is being asked once again to make a false choice--a choice between cybersecurity and privacy--and I don't think these two are mutually exclusive. I think we can have both. Our job is to write a cybersecurity bill that protects America's security and the fundamental right to privacy of our people. There is no sound policy reason to sacrifice the privacy rights of law-abiding American citizens in the name of cybersecurity. It is my intent to fight any legislation that would force Members of the Senate to make that choice.

Mr. President, with that I yield the floor.

Approximately 12 minutes.

Mr. President, without turning this into a bouquet-tossing contest, I want Senator Conrad to know how much I appreciate his leadership. I also want to make sure people understand the record. If the Congress had passed the bipartisan proposal the Senator put together on the budget with Senator Judd Gregg, the Conrad-Gregg proposal--a Democrat joined with a Republican--in 2010 we could have forced an actual effort to put together a comprehensive tax reform and spending agreement. As we know--and I don't need to go over the history--some of the sponsors of the proposal were not even willing to go along. But I think it is important that the country understand we have to do this in a bipartisan way. If Senator Conrad and Senator Judd Gregg had prevailed in 2010, we could have forced actual spending reductions and tax reform in a bipartisan effort. I sure wish we had proceeded with it. And as one who supported it, I still think that would have been preferable.

For 7 years before being elected to the Congress, I had the honor of serving senior citizens. I ran the Senior Citizens Legal Aid Office, I served as the public advocate on our State's nursing home board, and I taught gerontology at several of our universities.

What I enjoyed most was the personal contact I had with senior citizens as a voluntary board member of our senior nutrition program. It is known as Loaves and Fishes, and through it I could bring meals to seniors at their homes on a number of occasions as part of the Meals on Wheels Program. Meals on Wheels is one part of government that truly understands the connection between the heart and the head. It touches the heart because I saw when we bring a nutritious meal to seniors, we can spend time visiting with them at home. Often they will tell us that we are the only visitor they will have during that day. It causes us to use our head and a sharp pencil. We can see without Meals on Wheels, as sure as the night follows the day, some of those seniors are not going to be able to stay in the community. They will end up needing institutional services, and those services are more costly. And, of course, seniors will often be less happy with those kinds of institutional programs.

I bring up Meals on Wheels today because several of the proposals that are offered by colleagues on the other side of the aisle are not going to be bipartisan because they substantially cut the part of the budget that funds Meals on Wheels. Through our research we specifically found that in several instances it will be between 17 and 59 percent in just the upcoming year.

Putting Meals on Wheels at risk like that defies common sense. I have already indicated from a compassion standpoint alone it warrants support. But even if Meals on Wheels doesn't grab your heart the way it does for me, it certainly ought to get the attention of your head because it is the kind of program that lets seniors have more of what they want, which is to be at home at less price to the taxpayers. It defies common sense to not be bipartisan in terms of approaching something like Meals on Wheels.

I think what is common sense is what Chairman Conrad and other colleagues have touched on, and that is tackling the big issues in a bipartisan way. Certainly when it comes to Medicare, that is what is needed. I would only say, having worked in this area, we ought to start with the fact that we are looking at--I am not the first to describe this--a demographic tsunami. For the next 20 years we are going to

have 10,000 seniors turning 65 every single day--10,000 seniors turning 65 every single day.

Fortunately, we have made a commitment in this country to those senior citizens, and it is called the Medicare guarantee. That is the commitment we have made to older people. It is a commitment to good quality, affordable health care. And if absolutely nothing is done, it is a commitment at risk. If nothing is done, the Medicare guarantee is in peril. My own sense is that if nothing is done, Medicare--as Senator Conrad pointed out, it is already facing cuts with sequestration--will face a steady diet of benefit cuts and cost shifting until we do not recognize the Medicare guarantee as it stands today. That is unacceptable to me. It ought to be unacceptable to every Member of the Senate.

As Chairman Conrad has noted, Medicare reform is going to have to be bipartisan. The reason I believe that is that if it is not, much like we saw with health care reform, if it is done on a partisan vote, as soon as the ink is dry on the signature of the passed bill, the other side will move to undo it or repeal it or radically alter it. I say the Medicare guarantee is too important for that, and that is why I, with other colleagues on both sides of the aisle and the help of the chairman, have been working to get bipartisan Medicare reform ready and teed up for enactment at the first possible opportunity. It is outlined on my Web site, Bipartisan Options for Reform. I am interested in working with every colleague here in the Senate to pursue it.

Here is what it is going to take: First and foremost, it will protect the most vulnerable seniors, what are called the dual eligibles, which are seniors who are eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid. The protections for those dual eligibles must be ironclad.

Unfortunately, a number of the offerings we are going to see from colleagues on the other side do not ensure ironclad protections for these vulnerable seniors--the dual eligibles--and by block-granting Medicaid, they put at risk the most vulnerable seniors, the seniors who need nursing home care that is paid for by Medicaid, and since Medicaid is a Federal-State program, by block-granting it, we put at risk the most vulnerable seniors. That is certainly not in line with what people will see on my Web site that outlines bipartisan approaches on which Democrats and Republicans can come together for Medicare reform.

The second part of Medicare reform is to ensure that we protect traditional Medicare. Traditional Medicare mandates that the government pay doctors and other providers for services, as well as providing private sector choices that have to offer coverage that is at least as good as traditional Medicare. By doing that, we force traditional Medicare and the private choices to hold each other accountable. It is going to be pretty hard to protect traditional Medicare and its purchasing power with some of what we are going to see later this afternoon that actually proposes to end traditional Medicare within the space of 2 years.

Third, Medicare reform--and we went into this in a very good hearing that was held in Chairman Conrad's Budget Committee--is going to require comprehensive consumer protection. I have been involved in this since the days when I would go visit senior citizens and they would bring out a shoe box full of health insurance policies that weren't worth the paper on which they were written. It was a Medigap scandal that we finally fixed in 1990. I have seen how these rip-off artists try to exploit our seniors. So at Chairman Conrad's hearing we talked about comprehensive consumer protections and specifically ensuring that any Medicare reform would have to have a strong risk-adjustment program so that if, for example, any network of health care providers or an insurer took mostly healthy people, their contribution from the government would be far less than the contribution that would be afforded for a program that took a greater number of older people with health challenges.

So I bring this up only by way of saying I am committed to bipartisan Medicare reform. I think Medicare is really sacred ground. It can only be preserved and protected by ensuring that we take the steps I have just outlined--three or four of them this afternoon--which ensure that we put seniors and their well-being before ideology and politics. This afternoon we are going to hear several alternatives offered by colleagues from the other side of the aisle that, in my view, don't do that, don't meet that test. In effect, we are going to be dealing with ideology rather than the kinds of principles I have outlined here today that I think can win support from colleagues on both sides of the aisle and that people can see on my own Web site have attracted the support of influential Republican voices.

So we have a test to meet. It is a test that builds on a bipartisan approach to a program that is sacred--I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute.

--and that is built around a Medicare guarantee that must be protected and preserved. A number of the proposals we will get from the other side this afternoon don't meet that test.

I want colleagues to know that I am committed to working with them to produce what America wants in this Congress; that is, bipartisan Medicare reform that ensures that this very special program prospers in the days ahead. We are up to it. We are up to it if we build on the bipartisan example Senator Conrad started years ago with Senator Gregg.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I strongly support this legislation, S. 2343, the Stop the Student Loan Interest Rate Hike Act. I appreciate the leadership particularly of Senator Reed of Rhode Island, who has been so eloquent on this subject. I also would note that Senator Alexander and I have worked together on a host of issues. I think he brings great expertise to this discussion as well.

The bottom line for me is that millions of young people are hurting right now in America. They are up to their eyeballs in debt and they cannot find good-paying jobs.

For example, we have seen in our home State, according to the Oregon Employment Department, that the overall unemployment rate last year was 9.4 percent but was 19 percent for workers age 16 to 24. I also note we have seen that the labor participation for young people has declined as well.

We have an enormous array of challenges in front of us. The reason that this legislation, the Stop the Student Loan Interest Rate Hike Act, is so important is that it allows us to achieve two important objectives. First, it puts us in a position to hold the line on student debt. If you are a sophomore in college, for example, and you have already incurred some debt and you want to finish school, then you want to get a degree in a field where you will get a job that pays a good wage. Without this legislation you are going to incur still more debt. So this legislation ought to be supported because it holds the line on debt, and by doing so it helps us achieve a very important objective: to increase the opportunity for young people to access higher education across the country. And historically whether it has been through Pell grants or Stafford loans and the like, we've always said to young people, try

to get to college. Families sitting around kitchen tables and in their living rooms have said this for years. Work hard in high school and try to get into college. And I have supported, here in the Senate, policies that increase access to a good education. By holding the line on debt, we can take steps to achieve an important part of higher education policy, and that is expanding access to higher education.

The second benefit of this legislation, in my view, is that by holding the line on debt we increase the opportunity for young people to get more value out of their education. The reason I bring this up is because my sense is that future policy in the higher education field is going to be about marrying these two objectives. Let's support this important legislation, S. 2343, to expand access, and use it as a foundation to move on to the next step of education policy, which is to get more value out of the education a young person pursues.

The reason I feel that way is that all over my State I am going to high schools and community colleges and talking with students who are thinking about both of those principles, access and value.

For example, at Blue Mountain Community College in Pendleton I met a young man who is taking 20 credits at school, working at Arby's full time as a manager, and he is already concerned about the debt he is racking up. He said to me: As I get my education, how will I know that I have laid the groundwork for being able to get a good-paying job? I told him, just as I am suggesting to the Senate today, that I am going to support efforts to expand student aid and make sure we hold down debt for young people. I described what we are dealing with on the floor of the Senate.

I also told him I have introduced a piece of legislation with my colleague on the other side of the aisle, Marco Rubio, called the Student Right To Know Before You Go Act. This bill will make it possible for students all across the country to get information about the expected average annual earnings after graduation, the rates of remedial enrollment for a particular field at a particular college, the average costs both before and after financial aid, and the prospects of a student earning a good wage after achieving a particular degree at a particular school. With this legislation we lay the foundation for what I think will be the education policy of the future.

We will ensure that students have access and ensure that they get more value out of their education and get more value out of the loans and other debt that they have to pay back. And the two go hand in hand. I ran into students who were juniors, for example, at colleges in my State and already owe $60,000. Without this legislation, those juniors are probably going to reup for a loan, and they are going to have to pay more, and that has the effect of reducing access to higher education. Paying more, it seems, is also going to reduce the opportunity for students to buy a bit more value out of their education as we try to get them better information with respect to the value of specific degree programs at specific schools. This type of information is now impossible to find. Suffice it to say, these two judgments, both with respect to the debt and the value of what they have pursued in terms of their college degree, are going to color their decisions for the rest of their lives.

One of the students I met in Oregon recently as I talked about this issue was interested in getting a medical degree. And as we have talked about health care issues--which the President of the Senate and I have both been very interested in over the years--one of the questions he asked me was how was he going to be able to get a medical degree initially and what would happen to him when he got out of medical school with all of this debt hanging over his head. I didn't want to chill his enthusiasm, but we know that if a young person comes out of medical school with an enormous amount of debt, there is a pretty good chance at some point they are going to have to pass some of that debt on to their patients, which means we are going to see medical costs for a lot of people in our country escalate still higher.

So the fact that we have these debts and the fact that it is hard for young people to purchase value in their education is going to have remarkable ripples all through our country for years and years ahead.

I am going to close simply by way of saying this: We have seen young people contribute to our economy. The President of the Senate shares an interest with this Senator in technology. Technology has been a big source of jobs in States such as Minnesota and Oregon. This has been a real economic engine for our country. Think about who brought us Facebook and Google and Twitter and YouTube. A disproportionate amount of the creative talent has been young people.

So we must first take steps to hold the line on debt--and that is to pass Senator Harkin's and Senator Reid's bill--so we don't say to college sophomores and juniors, we don't care if they rack up any more debt when we know how much heartache it is going to bring to them. Then we can move on to the next step, which is empowering students and families to be able to get the maximum amount of value from their education. If we don't take these steps I think we will have let the country down in this area at a crucial time.

We understand that higher education is one of the principal paths, if not the best path, to success for many students. It is not for every student, but certainly for millions. And education has enabled many young people to contribute to technology which has been, as I described, a real spark for our economy.

So I see other colleagues waiting to speak, and I only urge colleagues to pass this legislation, S. 2343, to ensure that we don't heap more debt onto the backs of students in college now and who might be reupping on those loans and wondering if they can afford it. Then as we expand access, let's look at taking additional steps to ensure that our young people get more value for their college education.

Senator Rubio and I have teamed up on a bill that I think addresses that question, the Student Right To Know Before You Go Act. Going to that next step and adding more value to a young person's education when they are armed with the facts requires that we lay the foundation of access to a good education, which I think should be required when so many young people are hurting.

I went through the statistics, and it requires that we pass S. 2343.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, on May 20 the world will see an encouraging sight. On that day, President Ma Ying-jeou of the Republic of China will be sworn in for a second term on the island of Taiwan. I was so pleased to see yet another free, fair, democratic election take place on January 14. I want to take a moment to wish President Ma and the people of Taiwan success and prosperity as their young democracy continues to flourish and serve as an example for other countries in the region.

The difference in governance can be striking when Taiwan is compared to some of its neighbors in the region. Taiwan's experiment with democracy is less than two decades old, but it has demonstrated spectacular progress, holding direct democratic elections in every Presidential election since 1996. The people of Taiwan vigorously exercise their right to vote--three out of every four Taiwanese citizens voted in the January elections--and they feel empowered to petition their government, voice their grievances, peacefully assemble, and, in general, enjoy many of the political freedoms that Americans hold dear.

Taiwan is an important economic partner of the United States and is a robust and growing market for American exports. Just last month, as chair of the Senate Finance Subcommittee on International Trade, I held a hearing on agricultural export opportunities to Asia. As Asia continues to experience impressive economic growth, it is important to remember that Taiwan is the sixth largest destination for American agricultural exports. More can be done to improve bilateral trade between our two countries though, and I hope President Ma and his colleagues in the Legislative Yuan will move quickly to resolve the outstanding issues surrounding American beef imports.

President Ma made good progress in his first 4 years in improving cross-strait relations and has worked hard to promote peace and prosperity in the region. I commend both sides' work in developing and signing the Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement between the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China. I am confident that President Ma will continue to work to ensure cross-strait stability and cultivate an environment free from intimidation.

The people of Taiwan have much to be proud of as they celebrate the inauguration of President Ma. The relationship between the people of the United States and the people of Taiwan is based on shared values and common interests. I look forward to seeing Taiwan grow and prosper, and want the Taiwanese people to know that they have an unshakeable ally in the United States as they continue forward as a young democracy.

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Feinstein, Senator Cantwell, other colleagues, and myself, I call up amendment No. 2020 and ask unanimous consent that it be modified with the changes at the desk.

Mr. President and colleagues, this amendment is for the more than 25 million Americans--more than 800,000 of them serving in the military--who vote by mail in our system of government, the most open and free system of government in the world. Those millions of Americans may vote absentee, they may vote in what is called no-excuse absentee, or they may vote in an all-mail election, but they deserve this fall to have the assurance from the U.S. Senate that as we reform the Postal Service, the election will not be disrupted.

I hope my colleagues will support this. I think it has been discussed at length on both sides of the aisle. It has always been bipartisan to try to expand the franchise. I hope we can pass this on a voice vote.

I wish to thank both Chairman Lieberman and Senator Collins, who had a real challenge handling all of these amendments and who have been very gracious, both of them, as always.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, shortly we will be turning to the legislation to reform the Postal Service, and I wanted to take a few minutes to talk about a particularly important part of that discussion.

In recent years there has been a revolution in how our citizens exercise their right to vote. Instead of every American showing up in person, more and more Americans are choosing to vote by mail, using absentee ballots, no-excuse absentee voting or, in the case of my home State of Oregon, the entire election is conducted by mail. This amendment I will be offering and that I am discussing this morning--and in which I join Senator Feinstein and other colleagues--is designed to protect the millions of Americans who choose to use the post office to exercise their right to vote. This amendment protects those millions of Americans from any kind of postal delay that could disrupt their ability to ensure their vote is counted.

My home State of Oregon has a system in which all ballots are cast by mail.

In Oregon, if the ballots are not delivered by mail to the county election offices by the deadline on election night, they are not counted. So it is essential to the conduct of fair elections in my home State that delivery of ballots cast by mail not be delayed.

To prevent the potential threat to our elections from delayed mail delivery, the Wyden-Feinstein amendment would place a moratorium on the closure of postal facilities until November 13, 2012, in States that vote by mail or allow any voter to vote no-excuse absentee. It would also require the Postal Service to notify election officials of closings and consolidations and require the Postal Service to study the effect of closing or consolidating a mail processing facility on the ability of the affected community to vote by mail.

My home State consistently has high voter turnout. Vote by mail has been successful and it is popular. In my State, more than 85 percent of registered voters participated in the 2008 elections, but this kind of approach to voting is popular not just in my home State of Oregon. In the 2008 election, 89 percent of ballots in Washington State were cast by mail, as well as 64 percent of those in Colorado, over 50 percent in Arizona, and it was nearly that high a percentage in California.

In my home State, the Postal Service is a place where people send and receive packages and mail order prescriptions, and it is also a place that community residents come together. It seems to me that if we are going to close and consolidate postal facilities, not only will it harm the delivery of ballots and campaign-related mail to voters and return of the ballots to election officials, but it also will zap much of what is vital to rural America; that is, the opportunity to come and gather in one place.

Jordan Valley, located in beautiful eastern Oregon on the Nevada border, is 457 miles from Portland. With the proposed consolidations, the nearest regional processing center would literally be almost 500 miles away. If the U.S. Postal Service goes ahead with their proposed closures and consolidations, then a ballot cast in Jordan Valley could travel approximately 1,000

miles before it reaches the hands of election officials. This is unacceptable for constituents who vote in the far corners--the rural corners--of my State.

Cuts to the Postal Service mean that ballots mailed in the final days before an election may not get to election officials in time to be counted. Ballots sent the weekend before a Tuesday vote may not get into the hands of election officials by the present-day deadline of election day. Closing and consolidating postal facilities disproportionately harms the ability of rural residents to have their votes counted.

These issues raise important questions: Is closing postal facilities in States that primarily vote by mail a responsible approach? For me and many of my constituents and the millions of Americans who have chosen to vote in this fashion, the resounding answer is, no, this is not a responsible approach. Closing processing facilities and potentially impacting the delivery of ballots in a general election is a risk not worth it. Closing postal facilities will have unintended and unforeseen consequences on the impact of elections.

That is why this amendment would place a moratorium until November 13, 2012, in States that conduct all their elections by mail or permit no-excuse absentee voting to ensure that elections are fair. No-excuse voting, of course, allows any voter to vote absentee without having to offer additional reasons for their making that choice. Twenty-seven States allow no-excuse absentee voting. So not only will the constituents that I and Senator Merkley and Senator Feinstein and Senator Boxer represent in Oregon and California be affected by this amendment, but States such as Nevada, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Utah, Wisconsin, and Wyoming are part of the many states in this country that this amendment would protect.

In September of 2011, election officials in California were doing their jobs and preparing and mailing sample ballots for a September election in an isolated community in northern California. Unaware that the small post office that serves the area was closing on October 1, the sample ballots were not immediately returned so they had no reason to believe the voters had not received them. But as ballots slowly trickled in, election officials grew a bit suspicious, and they learned many voters had just received their sample ballot more than 3 weeks after it was mailed, and many had not received their official ballot yet. Election officials received no more than two or three a day literally for the first week.

Voters explained to officials there was so much confusion over the closure of the post office that they were much more concerned about receiving their other first-class mail--bills and prescriptions--than their ballots and hadn't been looking for them. They were told the contents of their post office box were being directed to the Arcata Post Office. But when they went to Arcata to retrieve it, there was no mail for them in Arcata. For 18 days, they didn't receive any mail at all.

Only 15 days before the election, the staff attempted several times to contact the Arcata Post Office but could only leave a message for the postmaster who was not returning their calls. Folks then contacted friends at a local central processing center in yet another town, Eureka, CA, who were able to give a direct line to the Arcata postmaster.

At first, the postmaster indicated nothing was wrong, but the residents, in his terms, were ``confused about the closure of their post office.'' After checking the number of ballots that had been returned from the precincts, election officials decided to resend all those ballots. The postmaster finally provided election officials with the change of address list for all residents, and they were able to correct the database, cancel the ballots that had not yet been received, and remail ballots to all voters who had not yet returned their ballots.

Obviously, the bottom line is clear. The closure of small post offices requires more preparation and sharing of information with the residents of an impacted area as well as agencies and businesses that rely on the post office to communicate with their customers. Had election officials not had a contact in that area, they may not have become aware of the problem until it was too late to resend the ballots.

Under the amendment I will be offering later with Senator Feinstein, the Postal Service would be required to notify election officials of closings and consolidations to prevent the kind of calamitous repeat of what I have described happened in a recent local election in California. Additionally, the amendment would require the Postal Service to study the effect of closing or consolidating a mail processing facility on the ability of the affected community to vote by mail and the ability of the Postal Service to deliver ballots on time in accordance with applicable State law.

Disenfranchising voters or discouraging the millions of Americans who now have chosen this new approach to voting is not a wise or prudent step for the Senate to take at this time. Placing a moratorium until after the elections will ensure that what is done in the Senate does not negatively impact voting in Oregon, California or the scores of other States that make extensive use of mail ballots in their elections.

I hope it will be possible for us to win bipartisan support for the proposition that ensuring the highest level of voting participation in our country is fundamental to our democracy. I hope my colleagues will support the amendment I intend to offer later with my colleague and friend from California, Senator Feinstein, to protect the millions of Americans who choose to vote by mail.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish to advocate for legislation my colleague, Senator Portman, and I have coauthored that focuses on driving better health outcomes for America's seniors through the use of real, positive financial incentives.

I think we can all agree on a theory--the best health care is often the least expensive, and it is often health care you can have real control over--prevention.

According to the Hastings Center, 76 percent of Medicare spending is on patients with five or more chronic diseases: stroke, heart disease, diabetes and cancer lead the way. And with $2.7 trillion spent annually on health care, one of the best ways to slow the growth of that spending is to keep Americans healthier, and to do that, we have to reduce the prevalence of chronic disease.

I think Medicare can help spark that transformation. It is a large Federal program, some of the smartest health policy links the Federal Government and the private sector, and, most important, the Federal Government already pays for seniors to have an annual physical.

At present, when seniors leave that physical, too often there is no game plan or specific steps a senior can take to get healthier in the year ahead. Seniors get a bunch of numbers about their tests, possibly a prescription, and some medical lingo about their general health, but mostly everyone just hopes things will turn out OK at the next physical. Maybe it was an OK year, and that extra dessert wasn't a problem after all.

We believe that if the Federal Government is already paying for that physical, it is only common sense to wring every possible advantage for seniors out of it, specifically by giving seniors the tools to make changes that promote good health and reward them for staying motivated.

That is exactly what the bill I have written with Senator Portman does. Typically, the assumption has always been that preventive care means more services. But in this case, government already pays for the service--the $3.8 billion on the annual wellness visit--and we are saying, let's get more out of that visit.

Here is how our legislation--the Medicare Better Health Rewards Program Act--would do that:

First, it is voluntary. Since we hear a little discussion about mandates these days, this is voluntary.

In year 1, a senior has their physical, has their tests run, and their health provider has a conversation with them about their health. They come up with a plan to use the next year so that the senior can get healthier. The provider then lets Medicare know their patient is participating.

In year 2, the senior comes back for their next annual wellness visit. Again, tests are run, and they discuss the changes that may have occurred over the last year. If they have gotten healthier and their provider confirms it, they are eligible for a Healthy Reward. If they haven't, they still had their physical at no out of pocket cost to them. Their provider still gets paid. The same happens again in year 3.

Finally, the money to pay these rewards comes from the fact that as participating seniors get healthier, Medicare is spending less money on them. They are saving the system money. If that occurs, those seniors who are getting healthier will be able to share in the savings.

Bottom line: Innovation is rampant in American health care, and we are here with a new strategy to bring a fresh wave of innovation to Medicare.

I would like to thank Senator Portman for working with me on this new approach to Medicare reform, and I urge my colleagues to join us in cosponsoring our legislation.

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize someone who has spent the last 30 years in the front ranks of the fight against hunger in my State.

Rachel Bristol, president and CEO of the Oregon Food Bank, has devoted her life to making sure that Oregonians in need are able to put nutritious food on the table. She has spent every minute of every day of her career doing everything in her power to eliminate hunger.

As Rachel retires, she leaves behind a legacy of determination and hard work that has guided the Oregon Food Bank and seen it expand into a professional organization that reflects her vision of what a community should do to help those in need.

Last year alone, the Oregon Food Bank Network distributed more than 81 million pounds of food. I am proud to say that I have stood beside the food bank's employees and volunteers and packaged my share of pancake mix or other food. So, I know firsthand how dedicated they are in making sure that no one goes to bed hungry.

Whether we call it hunger, food insecurity or something else, what we are really talking about is the tragedy of having hungry families in the richest country in the world.

Rachel saw that inequity and spent her life doing something about it. Because of that fewer people in Oregon went hungry because she gave them a place to go--a place to look to--for basic nutritious food to put on their table.

Because of Rachel Bristol, the food bank is a better organization and Oregon is a better community.

While she may be retiring, something tells me that the fight against hunger will always be a part of who she is.

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

Mr. President, I have been able to listen a bit to the wonderful tributes over the last few hours to Senator Mikulski. We all know of her wonderful service all these years, the record that is being shattered--a very special record.

As I listened to some of the comments, I was struck that tributes usually come in the Senate when one of our colleagues is leaving office or sometimes one of our colleagues passes away. And what I am struck by this afternoon is how glad I am and colleagues on both sides of the aisle are that Senator Mikulski is very much alive, and next week and next month and in the years ahead she is going to continue to bring this kind of wellspring of conscience and energy and passion and expertise to the Senate.

I am going to have more to say in terms of a lengthier speech, but she and I have had a special relationship for almost three decades. We served together in the other body on the Energy and Commerce Committee. We would often show up at meetings together, and this is still a tradition that continues now because we both have the honor of serving on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Senator Mikulski and I would walk in together, and she would smile and say: Now the long and short of it are arriving. And I guess that is true in a literal sense, but while Senator Mikulski may be modest in stature, she has one very large record on behalf of the public interest, and I am especially grateful for all she has done for people without power and people without clout.

When we think about what has so angered the American people--and I have heard the Senator from Colorado, the Presiding Officer, talk about this--it is that people feel so disconnected from government; that you can have a community meeting in Oregon or Colorado or Maryland or some other part of the country, and somehow there is this sense what goes on in Washington really has nothing to do with people in their home community.

Senator Mikulski doesn't practice public service that way. Senator Mikulski has always felt, since the days when she was a community organizer and they were dealing with those community problems and where are you going to locate a freeway or something of that nature, that public service and community service were always about being connected to people. She understood right away what people may say at a townhall meeting now in Colorado or Oregon about government being removed from their lives, and for decades she has practiced a very different kind of public service. She did it when she was a community organizer, she did it in the House of Representatives, and she continues to do it today.

Very often when we take the subway to a vote and I ask her what she has done over the weekend, she will talk about families. She knows I was codirector of the Gray Panthers for many years before I was elected to Congress, so we will talk about aging issues. And everybody knows what she has done in the aging field and her interest in fighting Alzheimer's. So it always comes back to people, and that connection she brings to public service that is so lacking from what Americans see is the big problem in government today, that much of what goes on here is simply disconnected from their lives.

What I see in Barbara Mikulski is the real measure of what we want in a public servant. We want someone who is conscientious, we want someone who is smart, we want someone who has good values and someone who always tries to be a coalition builder.

I have watched Senator Mikulski in lots of instances. We had one just recently where Senator Mikulski was trying to find a balance on a difficult and contentious issue between industry and the environment, and I watched how she was trying to listen to both sides. Maryland has some communities where they have older plants, and if she can't take steps to protect those plants and have the workers keep their jobs, a lot of people are going to hurt, and Senator Mikulski always tries to keep that from happening. She has also said clean air and the environmental

laws are important. And that last quality of trying to bring people together, which I have heard the Senator from Colorado talk about, is what Senator Mikulski's public service career has been all about.

So tonight and through the day we have heard colleagues pay tribute. I made mention of the fact that so often I hear these tributes when a colleague is leaving the Senate. I would like to close these brief remarks by saying that I am especially grateful that the cause of good government is enhanced by the fact that Senator Mikulski is very much alive. This is not a tribute to someone who is leaving office, this is a tribute to someone who is going to be here next week, next month, and the years ahead, continuing to shatter those records as she advocates for people who don't have big lobbies, who don't have lots of political clout and can't go out and hire PR firms and well-paid and well- tailored advocates to walk the halls of the Senate. She is there for those people who don't have a voice. She has been there for those people ever since she was a community organizer in those early days in Baltimore.

When I think about trying to give public service a good name, I think about Barbara Mikulski--our wonderful friend, Senator Barbara Mikulski, the senior Senator from the State of Maryland. We thank her for giving public service a good name. We thank her for taking on the battles and the fights she has in the past. And we are all especially grateful that at the end of this tribute she will be back at her post a few seats from me, standing for those values and standing for those causes that are so important to the well-being of this country.

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