Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 587, S. 3751.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported substitute amendment be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read three times, passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating thereto be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I rise to discuss my opposition to the resolution before us, the resolution disapproving the National Mediation Board's ruling on election procedures. This ruling finally brings union election rules in the rail and aviation industries in line with union elections in every other industry. It also brings them in line with every other democratic election for public office at the Federal, State, and local levels.

Today, after the NMB rule change, a union election at an airline will be like any other election. Employees who are the voters will have the opportunity to access a ballot. If they want union representation, they will vote yes. If they do not want union representation, they will vote no. If they do not have a strong opinion or if they forget to vote, then they do not count. Election officials count up the cast ballots and the category with the most votes wins.

Does anything about that description raise any flags? Probably not. Because that is how elections work in this country. Prior to the NMB rule change, an airline union election worked very differently. Election officials counted people who did not vote as ``no'' votes. Imagine if Senate elections worked that way for us--if, to elect a Senator, 50 percent of the eligible voters in the State had to vote for a candidate. In the 2000 elections, when every single State except for my home State of Minnesota had less than 60 percent turnout, what would have happened?

Let's say, for the sake of it, that all the races had as high a turnout as Minnesota--60 percent. They did not, but let's say so. In order to capture 50 percent of the entire electorate, a candidate would have to get 84 percent of the votes cast. If no Senator captured 84 percent under the old NMB rules, those States would not get a Senator. There would be no one here or almost no one. It would be a lonely place.

Thankfully, that is not how Senate elections work. Thankfully, airline elections will not work like that going forward. But that is how they worked in the past. In a 2008 Delta flight attendant election, the outcome was 5,306 in favor of union representation out of 5,375. That sounds like a pretty strong victory in favor of the union, right? Wrong. The National Mediation Board was forced to compute the tally by counting nonvoters as ``no'' votes; thus, it ended up with 5,306 votes in favor of the union and 8,074 not in favor. So the vote failed, even though less than 1 percent of those voting against the union represented actual cast ballots.

I should admit I have a special concern in this debate. My home State is home to thousands of Delta employees. Prior to the merger, they were Northwest employees and most were unionized. Now they are facing a scary prospect: losing union representation after enjoying its benefits for decades. Union representation has provided them with living wages, retirement security, and health benefits. Compare this to a flight attendant for a different airline who revealed she was eligible for food stamps, despite working full time.

In professions in which full-time workers get food stamps, union representation is even more vital. The NMB rule change will give Delta workers a meaningful choice, the same meaningful choice voters have in every other democratic election in this country. The claim that this rule change is unfair or undemocratic is simply not true. This change will bring real democracy to elections in the airline and rail industries. I think we can all agree that democracy has served our country well. I think we can agree on that. I urge my colleagues to vote against this resolution.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, ``[c]learly the American public has a right to know who is paying for ads and who is attempting to influence elections. Sunshine is what the political system needs.''

We can try and regulate ethical behavior by politicians,

but the surest way to cleanse the system is to let the Sun

shine in.

I don't like it when a large source of money is out there

funding ads and is unaccountable.

I think the system needs more transparency so people can

more easily reach their own conclusions.

I support campaign finance reform, but to me that means

individual contributions, free speech and full disclosure.

Public disclosure of campaign contributions and spending

should be expedited so voters can judge for themselves what

is appropriate.

The issue is expenditures, expenditures, expenditures; and

the real issue, if we really want to do something about

campaign finance reform, is disclosure, disclosure,

disclosure.

Disclosure helps everyone equally to know how their money

is spent. . . . Disclosure is what honesty and fairness in

politics is all about. Why would anyone fight against

disclosure?

Those are all excellent points. The fact is, they were made by seven different Members of this body, all from my friends on the other side of the aisle. They were made either on the floor of this body or to the press.

So let there be no doubt, for a long time, disclosure of election spending has been a robustly bipartisan issue. But suddenly each of my friends has changed his or her tune. They now oppose legislation called the DISCLOSE Act--disclose, disclosure--the DISCLOSE Act that would force companies, nonprofits, and unions to disclose the money they spend in our elections, both to the Federal Election Commission and to the American people.

Here is one reason why they may have changed their tune. Thanks to the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United, which Senator McCaskill just spoke so eloquently about, corporations today have more power to spend in our elections than they have had in our lifetimes. In that decision, the Roberts Court broke with a century of precedent, overturned two Federal laws, reversed two of its own decisions, and nullified 24 State laws, including a 20-year-old Minnesota law. The Supreme Court did all that to allow corporations to spend as much money as they want, whenever they want, in our elections and not just Federal elections--State elections, county elections, school board elections.

Here is another reason my friends have changed their tune: Those corporations are using their newfound power to disproportionately benefit my friends across the aisle. Since August 1, Republican interest groups have outspent Democratic interest groups 5 to 1, and these corporations are funneling millions upon millions of dollars into our elections without anyone knowing where that money came from.

It is no accident they are so eager to influence elections and to do so anonymously. You know why? Because Congress has finally stepped in to protect consumers from abuses by big businesses that have been allowed for far too long to write their own rules. So big businesses are giving money anonymously.

Corporations will not spend money on just any election. They are going to spend it when we, the Congress, try to pass laws that are tough on Wall Street or on health insurance companies. They are going to spend it when your city council debates whether to allow a new toxic waste dump that wants to come to town. They are going to spend it when anyone tries to pass consumer and environmental laws that protect our families and our homes. The best part of it is, they do not want anyone to know they are doing it.

That is why we need the DISCLOSE Act. The DISCLOSE Act will allow Americans to know how and which corporations and unions are trying to influence elections. The DISCLOSE Act would make sure we do not need a permission slip from big business to run our communities.

Let me repeat what it will do. First and foremost, the DISCLOSE Act is about disclosure; hence, the DISCLOSE Act. That is why it is named that. It will force CEOs, union heads, and leaders of advocacy groups, along with their top contributors, to be identified in the ads they pay for. These same groups, corporations, nonprofits, and unions would be required to disclose their top donors to the Federal Election Commission.

If a company has shareholders, they are going to have to disclose their expenditures to those shareholders in periodic reports and on their Web sites.

Some of my friends across the aisle are saying the DISCLOSE Act is not just about disclosure, it has some other stuff in there. You know what? They are right. It has a few other things in there. What are they? Well, a prohibition on spending by companies receiving taxpayer money in the form of major government contracts--the Senator from Missouri talked about that as well--or companies that have received TARP funds they have yet to pay back.

What else? A prohibition on expenditures by companies where a foreign individual or company or nation has a controlling share, as it is defined by Delaware and 30 other States--that is, at it is defined by 31 of the 32 states that define a controlling share with a number. This is a provision I authored and that Senator Schumer included in this piece of legislation. This provision will prevent CITGO, owned by Venezuela, from using the Citizens United decision to pour money into our elections.

I welcome the opportunity to debate these provisions. I welcome it. So far, some of my friends will not allow that debate to happen. No debate, and the American people will continue to suffer for it.

So I urge all my colleagues to allow debate on this important bill. Allow debate on this bill. It is about the future of our democracy. Allow debate.

Before I conclude, let me quote again a prominent friend on the other side of the aisle:

Public disclosure of campaign contributions and spending

should be expedited so voters can judge for themselves what

is appropriate.

Let me repeat that: ``Public disclosure of campaign contributions and spending should be expedited so voters can judge for themselves what is appropriate.''

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, first of all, I ask unanimous consent that we not go into the quorum call.

I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, I rise to discuss two important issues we will not have the chance to debate because we are unable to take up the Defense authorization bill.

Let me start with the need for repeal of the discriminatory don't ask, don't tell policy. We are so close to making a historic accomplishment that I think we would be able to look back on with pride. It is also simply the right thing to do. This country is long past ready for it, and it is the right thing because the don't ask, don't tell policy has been costly for our military. Treating gays and lesbians unequally because of their sexual orientation just does not make sense to me. We should not be denying gay and lesbian Americans the ability to serve our Nation simply because of who they are. We should not make them lie in order to serve.

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, ADM Mike Mullen, endorsed the repeal of don't ask, don't tell. He put it this way:

I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in

place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about

who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens. For

me, personally, it comes down to integrity: theirs as

individuals and ours as an institution.

But as I said, this is not just about the right thing to do. The country is ready for it, and the military is ready for it. Things have changed since 1993. The country is now way ahead of us on this issue. A Washington Post/ABC News poll in February 2010 showed that 75 percent of Americans believe gay and lesbian Americans should be able to serve openly in the U.S. military--75 percent. There is almost nothing we can get 75 percent of the country to agree on these days. The country has been steadily moving in this direction for some time. In 1993, 44 percent of those surveyed favored this. It was up to 62 percent in 2001. And now we are at 75 percent. Multiple other polls reinforce this result. The country is way past being ready for this change, and so is the military.

Do we need to think carefully about how to implement repeal? Yes. That is why the Pentagon is undertaking a comprehensive review of how to implement the repeal. But is there any reason to think unit cohesion or military readiness is going to be negatively affected? No. There is simply no reason to think that. In fact, let's look to the military's own thinking on this question. A recent article in Joint Force Quarterly concluded that ``there is no scientific evidence to support the claim that unit cohesion will be negatively affected if homosexuals serve openly.'' No scientific evidence.

Let me also briefly tell you about my experience. Before I was a Senator, I did a number of USO tours over the years. On each tour, I was more and more impressed with the men and women of the military. This was between 1999 and 2006. I did seven tours. The last 4 years, I was in Iraq and Afghanistan and Kuwait. I would go with a very eclectic tour of guys and women: the Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders, country western artists, almost all of whom are very rightwing, and we love each other because we went on these tours.

Let me tell you about one show I did. I am not going to say what base it was. I do not want to get anybody in trouble. We did a 4-hour show. This was the fourth year we did this with the sergeant major of the Army. We did a 4-hour show because we found out the troops loved the show because it was a little bit of home. During the show, I would--I was kind of the cohost with a beautiful woman named Leeann Tweeden, and we would do comedy routines, we would introduce music, and we would introduce the cheerleaders.

I would go out and do a monologue. This is something I would do and had done for a number of years. I would go out and I would say: You know, I have done now seven USO tours, and every year I am just more and more impressed with the military, except for one thing I don't get. It is this whole don't ask, don't tell policy.

Now, it was about 28 degrees where I was talking, and there were maybe a couple thousand troops. Most of them were standing, some were in the bleachers. This was like 3 hours into the show, but they were just loving the show.

I said: But there's one thing I don't understand. It is this don't ask, don't tell policy. We all know that brave gay men and women have served in our country's uniform throughout its history, and yet we have this policy. Take, for example, General Smith.

I then pointed to the commander of the base.

I said: Now, here is one of the bravest men ever in the history of our country

to don our Nation's uniform in battle, and yet he is one of the gayest men I have ever met.

And they started laughing and cheering.

I said: Now, why should General Smith have to stay in the closet when he is such a great leader? General Smith, stand up and wave.

He got up and waved, and everyone cheered. And in the bleachers there was a group of women soldiers who cheered extra loudly and waved at him, and he waved back at them.

At the very end of the show, we sang ``American Soldier'' by Toby Keith.

I don't know if you know that song. It is a beautiful song. I will always remember while doing the USO tours seeing soldiers with their arms around each other crying and singing: I don't do it for the money. I've got bills that I can't pay.

At the end of the show, the general came up and gave me this beautiful frame with an American flag that had flown over the base. He gave it to every member of our troop. When he gave it to me, he said, ``Al, keep telling those don't ask don't tell jokes. I think you may have some fans up there.'' And he pointed at those women. Later, those women came up to me and said, ``We are gay.'' And I think everybody knew it.

This was in 2006 when it was really hard for the military to recruit people, so they gave waivers out at that time. They gave waivers--moral waivers. They gave waivers for people who didn't do as well in school or didn't graduate from school. I swear, if you asked every man and woman on that base: Who would you rather have standing to your right and left, that gay man or that gay woman who has been serving with you for the last year or somebody who comes in here with a moral waiver-- and many of those troops who had moral waivers served very honorably and bravely--or someone with a cognitive waiver--and many of those flourished in the military--they would say: I want that gay soldier, that lesbian soldier, who I know has been on my right and on my left.

All gay and lesbian servicemembers want is to be able to serve. Instead, people are getting kicked out of the military--people who don't need any kind of conduct waiver, people who don't need standards lowered for them in order to serve, people who are patriotic and courageous and who have vital, irreplaceable skills.

What is more, the evidence is clear from other countries that have allowed gay and lesbian citizens to serve openly in their military--and Susan Collins spoke about this today. That evidence says this will not be a problem. Ask the Israelis, ask the Canadians, and ask the British. They have all successfully implemented open service.

But it is not only that the military is ready for this change; don't ask, don't tell is just costly for the military. Thousands of willing and capable Americans with needed skills have been kicked out of the military because of this foolish policy--and this policy alone. These are soldiers, airmen, and sailors in whom we have invested time and training. We cannot afford to lose dedicated personnel with critical skills when we are engaged in two wars.

On top of that, do we want our military officers spending valuable time and resources investigating and kicking troops out of the military for being gay?

The argument offered by some opponents is that this legislation goes back on the promise to take into account the comprehensive review being conducted by the Pentagon, but that is just a canard.

Let me remind you what Secretary Gates said about the review when he testified before the Armed Services Committee back in February. Secretary Gates said:

I fully support the President's decision. The question

before us is not whether the military prepares to make this

change, but how we best prepare for it.

Not whether, but how. That process is going forward, and the provision in this bill repealing the flawed don't ask, don't tell policy does nothing to interfere with the Pentagon's process. All the provision does is repeal the existing law. It does not tell the Department of Defense how to implement the repeal.

What is more, the repeal itself doesn't even go into effect until after the Pentagon's comprehensive review is complete and the President, Secretary of Defense, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have certified that the Department of Defense has prepared the necessary policies and regulations for implementation. They must also certify that the implementation is consistent with military readiness and effectiveness, unit cohesion, and recruiting and retention.

To be honest, I am not fully satisfied with that compromise. I wanted a moratorium on discharges. But that is the compromise, and it doesn't undercut the Pentagon's review in any way.

Don't ask, don't tell makes no sense. It is foolish, it is unjust, and we must end it. The country is ready, the military is ready, and it is the right thing to do. I urge all of my colleagues to stand for equality and for common sense and to stand for our troops. It is long past time to end don't ask, don't tell. We will be proud that we did.

Let me turn to the DREAM Act, which also would have come up if we had been able to get cloture and move to the Defense authorization bill.

Minnesota is what it is today because we welcomed immigrants with open arms. We welcomed the Swedes, who first tilled our fields and built our railroads. We welcomed the Norwegians, who thrived in our lumber industry and founded choirs that remain the best in the world today. We welcomed the Danes, who made our State a leader in dairy farming. We welcomed the Germans, the Finns, the Poles, and the Czechs.

In fact, from the time we were admitted to the Union in 1858 until 1890, no less than one-third of Minnesotans were born abroad. Today, most of the people we welcome don't come from Europe. They don't speak Swedish or German. They speak Spanish or Hmong or Somali, and they are not one-third of our population. Just 7 percent of Minnesotans were born abroad. So there are far fewer immigrants in Minnesota by percentage. Mr. President, let me tell you, these folks work just as hard and they show just as much promise.

I rise to speak in support of the DREAM Act because just by passing this law we can do something remarkable to help those Minnesotans--at least some of them. This is a group of young people who were brought here by their parents. They were raised as Americans and, for the most part, speak English just like you and I. But because their parents made a mistake, because their parents broke the law and entered the country illegally, or overstayed a visa, these kids are stuck. They can't go to college. They can't get jobs. They can't join our military. They are out of luck, and our society is going to pay for it.

The DREAM Act would allow these students to reenter society, to come out of the shadows of society to study or to serve in our country's military.

I want to put faces to the young people of Minnesota who would benefit from the DREAM Act. I am going to change their names to protect their identity.

There is a young man named Daniel. Daniel came to the United States from Colombia when he was 8. He grew up in the suburbs, and he ran varsity track and cross-country for his high school. Since he couldn't get a driver's license, he took a 2-hour bus ride every day just to get to classes at Normandale Community College. In his second year, Daniel's father died, leaving Daniel and his mother without any income.

Daniel almost dropped out, but he didn't. Instead, he became the first member of his family to graduate from college, with dual associate degrees in education and computer science--both with honors. Daniel is now at the University of Minnesota. He is trying to get his bachelor's degree. But since he can't work, he can't afford to attend school full time. So every semester, Daniel saves up all of his money to take just one class. He is completing his bachelor's one class at a time.

There is another remarkable young Minnesotan, Javier, who came to this country at the age of 15. He enrolled in St. Paul High School and quickly learned English, and by his senior year was taking advanced placement and college courses and volunteering at the State capitol. He even started to like the weather in Minnesota.

Today, Javier is an elected leader of student government at a college in our

State. He has become a role model not just for immigrants but for all his fellow students. Javier wants to dedicate his career to improving our educational system. But because of the decision his parents made, he can't.

I get letters from students like these all the time. Many of them are just as talented, and they all ask me for the same thing: the opportunity to work hard for this country. Let me repeat that: They only ask for the opportunity to work hard for this country.

Another young woman wrote me to ask:

We do not want welfare or any money. We are not asking for

immunity to the law. We are only asking for a chance to come

out to the light and live like any other person.

There are a lot of reasons we should help them. The first reason is that it is the smart thing to do. Some of my colleagues have stood here and said they couldn't believe the DREAM Act might be included in the Defense authorization bill.

In fact, the Defense Department has supported the DREAM Act since the Bush administration. This bill is actually a part of our Nation's strategic defense plan--hence, the Defense authorization bill. It will incentivize and reward students to wear our Nation's uniform, and our Nation will be safer because of it.

Here is another reason this is smart. We don't want kids like Javier doing dishes. We don't want kids like Daniel taking 10 years to get their bachelor's degree. We want them studying, contributing to our economy, and serving in our military. But there is a far more important reason we should pass the DREAM Act, and that is because it is the right thing to do.

Mr. President, there is a passage in Leviticus--a book that appears in both the Old Testament and the Torah--which I think is appropriate. Leviticus is a book of laws. It is said to describe God's covenant with the Israelites. This is chapter 19, verse 33:

When the foreigner resides with you in your land, you shall

not oppress the foreigner. The foreigner who resides with you

shall be to you as the citizen among you; you shall love the

foreigner as yourself, for you were foreigners in the land of

Egypt.

Mr. President, these are children, and we need to help them. They have learned in our schools, they have played with our kids, and they want to serve our country. We just need to give them a chance.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 6 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. President, I rise today to honor the Minnesotans and their families affected by Alzheimer's disease and recognize September 21 as World Alzheimer's Day. Today, over 94,000 Minnesotans and 5 million Americans are living with Alzheimer's disease. These are epidemic numbers, and the toll on our families and communities is devastating. Alzheimer's is the seventh leading cause of death and costs our Nation $172 billion a year.

But today, on World Alzheimer's Day, we have reason to be hopeful. On this day, Alzheimer's is getting the attention it deserves. Take the first ever Alzheimer's Breakthrough Ride as an example. For the last 66 days, Alzheimer's researchers from across the country biked hundreds of miles to spread awareness about Alzheimer's. Today, these researchers arrived in Washington to demand that the fight against Alzheimer's be made a national priority.

I am proud to say that among the researchers on the ride is Minnesota doctor Michael Walters of the University of Minnesota's Grossman Center for Memory Research and Care. Dr. Walters rode from Madison, WI, to Chicago, IL, to raise awareness about Alzheimer's. He is here in Washington to demand that we in Congress provide the funding needed to make real progress against this disease. And we need real progress. After decades of research, there is still no effective treatment and no way to prevent or cure Alzheimer's. That is why my colleague from Maryland, Senator Mikulski, has put forth a bill to make Alzheimer's research a national priority. S. 1492, the Alzheimer's Breakthrough Act, would dramatically increase funding for Alzheimer's research at the National Institutes of Health. Under this bill, the NIH would also focus on prevention and early detection of the disease--two understudied areas that could drastically improve the health of millions of Americans. That is why I am proud to have cosponsored the Alzheimer's Breakthrough Act.

The bill puts us one step closer to finding a cure and gives hope to families affected by Alzheimer's. One such family is the Shapiros of Edina, MN. In 2006, Alan Shapiro was diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease. Alan's father, uncle, and grandfather have all died of Alzheimer's, and Alan's brother Robert is currently living with the disease as well. Right now, Alan is in the midstage of his disease and needs round-the-clock supervision. His wife Carol spends her days caring for him so they can continue to live at home together. In addition to caregiving, Carol also takes care of all the things Alan used to do, such as maintaining the house. While Carol is involved with local sport groups, she struggles just to stay afloat.

Like the Shapiros, many families affected by Alzheimer's will tell you that their needs are not being met. It is not always clear where to turn for help. Sometimes a doctor can tell you about a clinical trial or a friend can offer to do the grocery shopping, but unfortunately it is never really enough. Families such as the Shapiros need help planning for the future, they need help navigating complicated insurance policies, and they need help finding high-quality, long-term care services and respite care. Fortunately for families in need of this kind of help, there is a Federal law called the Older Americans Act. The Older Americans Act provides seniors and families affected by Alzheimer's with tools to create a long-term care plan, and it can help caregivers, such as Carol Shapiro, find services for their loved ones. For example, in Minnesota, the Older Americans Act funds the Senior Linkage Line. Families can call the line and get information about services for people with Alzheimer's available in their community.

Because of limited funding, even resources such as the Senior Linkage Line are not always well known or able to serve everyone who needs them the most. That is why it is important to take a close look at the Older Americans Act when it is up for reauthorization next year. It is critical that the Older Americans Act receive robust funding so families affected by Alzheimer's know about the resources that are available to them. It is also important that we strengthen the law to ensure that people with Alzheimer's have access to high-quality, long- term care services and that States have the resources to protect people with Alzheimer's who receive care at home.

Today, on World Alzheimer's Day, I am committed to making support for families affected by Alzheimer's a national priority. As a member of the HELP Committee and the Special Committee on Aging, I will be fighting for the needs of Minnesotans affected by Alzheimer's disease during the reauthorization of the Older Americans Act. I will be a strong supporter of Alzheimer's research so real progress can be made to stop this disease. I urge my colleagues to do the same. I ask that they take this important day to remember the families, such as the Shapiros, living in their home States.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that on Thursday,

September 23, at 10:30 a.m., the Republican leader or his designee be recognized to move to proceed to the consideration of S.J. Res. 30, a joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, USC, of the rule submitted by the National Mediation Board relating to representation election procedures; that there be 2 hours of debate on the motion to proceed, with the time equally divided and controlled between Senators Harkin and Isakson or their designees; that upon the use or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to vote on adoption of the motion to proceed; that if the motion is successful, then there be 1 hour of debate with respect to the joint resolution, with the time divided as indicated above; that upon the use or yielding of time, the joint resolution be read for a third time and the Senate then proceed to vote on passage of the joint resolution; provided further that if the motion to proceed is defeated, then no further motion to proceed to the joint resolution be in order; further, that no amendments or any other motions be in order to the joint resolution and all other provisions of the statute governing consideration of the joint resolution remain in effect during the pendency of this agreement.

Mr. President, I understand that S. 3816, introduced earlier today by Senator Durbin, is at the desk and I ask for its first reading.

I now ask for its second reading and object to my own request.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m. on Wednesday, September 22; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; and that following any leader remarks, the Senate proceed to a period of morning business until 4 p.m., with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each, with the time until 10 a.m. equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees; and with the time from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. controlled in 30- minute alternating blocks of time, with the majority controlling the first block and the Republicans controlling the next block; and that following morning business, the Senate resume consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 3454, the Department of Defense authorization bill.

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it adjourn under the previous order.

Mr. President, I want to say one thing to my esteemed colleague from South Dakota. I went all around the State of Minnesota during this recess. I had 118 meetings. Many of them were economic development meetings all around the State. Over and over and over I heard from small businesses that they can't get access to capital, and I heard from commercial bankers that they can't lend capital because their regulators are saying: Well, we are going to have to write that all off.

Small businesses want this. This is not toxic asset relief, as TARP was. This is small business lending. Small businesses create 70 percent of new jobs, and this is something that Minnesota's small businesses want and the Small Business Administration in Minnesota wants.

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

I rise today, Mr. President, to speak in support of food safety legislation. Food safety is a topic that affects every single American. Food safety is something we all care about because we all eat. American consumers spend more than $1 trillion on food each year, and each year there are an estimated 76 million cases of foodborne illness, including at least 5,000 deaths a year in our country. That is why it is time that this important piece of bipartisan legislation be brought to the floor. We have waited far too long to do our job and to complete our work on the issue. We have waited too long to pass a bill that will save lives.

In November, we unanimously voted S. 510, the bipartisan FDA Food Safety Modernization Act, out of the HELP Committee--unanimously. At the time, we were talking about the recent outbreaks of E. coli in spinach and salmonella in peppers and peanut butter. But months have passed and we have still not brought the bill to the floor. In the months since we have passed the bill out of committee, we have already had more outbreaks of salmonella--from black and red peppers in 44 States and frozen tuna in 6 States. Seven states have been affected by raw milk outbreaks, including my home State of Minnesota. Eighteen states have been affected by salmonella in frozen dinners. And this summer, we have seen one of the worst outbreaks in recent history. From May to September of this year, 1,519 illnesses were reported that are likely to be associated with contaminated eggs. That includes at least 14 Minnesotans. And we may still see more cases before this awful situation has been resolved.

With all these cases of illnesses and the recalls taking place, I think we all understand the serious threat contamination poses to our food supply. We have heard repeatedly, and correctly, that our current food safety system is broken. The system relies too heavily on reacting to outbreaks after they have occurred instead of preventing their occurrence in the first place. This is why we need to pass Federal legislation now. We must stop more Americans from getting sick and bring our country's food safety system into the 21st century.

S. 510 will provide FDA with the resources and authorities it needs to properly oversee that safe food comes to our table. There are a lot of great provisions in this bill, and I want to highlight a few that are most important to us in Minnesota.

First, the bill would give FDA the authority to require certification of imported food and verify that the food coming from foreign suppliers is safe. Our food safety system was set up in the early 1900s, and a lot has changed since then. The key difference is that we have a lot more imported food than ever before. The truth is that even if we do everything right with our food products here in the United States, about 15 percent of our food comes from other countries. S. 510 gives the FDA new authority so we can avoid situations such as the 2007 melamine contamination in the infant formula and pet food coming from China.

Secondly, S. 510 would get the FDA out and inspecting food producers more often and require them to keep better records. Right now, FDA visits a given food facility every 10 years, on average. A lot can change in 10 years. Ten years is not frequent enough to assure safety.

The issue is primarily one of lack of resources. As the number of food producers has increased, FDA's capacity has remained stagnant. This bill would provide FDA with the resources to inspect more frequently and target the facilities with the greatest risk for outbreaks. FDA would also have the authority to require better recordkeeping and access records if there is a reasonable probability that a problem is occurring.

Lastly, S. 510 would also make sure the FDA is equipped to trace and recall food quickly when it needs to. Right now, there are a lot of processed foods with a lot of different ingredients and there are no requirements for anyone to track where they come from, and when there is a problem, FDA can't force a company to recall its product, even when there is overwhelming evidence to do so.

Let me give an example of why these traceback and recall provisions are particularly important. In late 2008, the Minnesota Department of Health noticed an elevated number of salmonella cases. My State has one of the best surveillance systems in the country, and after comprehensive investigations, the Minnesota scientists identified the King Nut brand of peanut butter as the culprit, produced by the Peanut Corporation of America, or PCA.

Minnesota folks worked with the FDA and the CDC, and in January companies began to voluntarily recall products with potentially contaminated products. But it was difficult for the company to know exactly where the contaminated peanut butter had ended up. So the recall was expanded three different times to try to get hold of the outbreak.

Most companies complied. But on March 23, 2009, the FDA asked the Westco Fruit and Nut Company to voluntarily recall all of its products containing peanuts from PCA because of the contamination threat. Westco refused. This company willingly put American lives in danger. And since the FDA doesn't have mandatory recall authority--now--it wasn't until April 27, 2009--36 days later--at the request of the FDA, that U.S. Marshals seized about $35,000 worth of PCA peanuts and products containing PCA peanuts at Westco because of possible salmonella contamination. So even after the tainted products were identified, it took almost 5 weeks to get the salmonella-laced peanut products off the shelves and away from where they could harm people.

This contamination and the subsequent investigation led to weeks of multiple company recalls of more than 2,000 different products from the shelves. But if the FDA had been able to immediately trace foods back to their producers and demand they be recalled, it could have withdrawn the contaminated foods much more quickly, saved lives, and prevented illness. Because so much tainted peanut butter got into our markets, the whole debacle was estimated to have cost the industry nearly $1 billion and led to the loss of innumerable jobs.

But the greatest cost was to American families. Because of the tainted products that PCA sent to market, over 700 Americans became ill, half of them children. Nine people died, three of them from my home State of Minnesota.

One of those who died was Shirley Almer, a Minnesota mother of three sons and two daughters. She had survived brain cancer and was in good health at the time of the outbreak. There was Clifford Tousignant of Duluth, a Korean war veteran, father of six, grandfather of 15, and great-grandfather of 14, who died. And Doris Flatgard of Bergen, MN, who had been married to her husband John for 65 years before she died from eating peanut butter on her morning toast.

I wanted to recount this outbreak because there are lives that were lost because we failed to protect the American people.

The bill we referred out of the HELP Committee takes some steps to improve the traceback infrastructure, but I think we can do more. I decided to work on this issue when Shirley Almer's three sons came and met with me and told me about how their lives had changed since they lost their mother; how their family would never be the same. They told me about the contaminated peanut butter, about how it had been included in countless products across the country, but we couldn't track the problem down fast enough since we don't require companies to keep track of where ingredients come from.

That is why I have been working closely with my colleague Senator Brown of Ohio to strengthen the traceability provisions in S. 510. I think we have made some good progress and I am hopeful the bill will be even better because of our efforts.

S. 510 includes a lot of other great provisions too and there is not enough time to talk about them all. But I do know that many elements of the bill were inspired by the great food safety work we do in Minnesota. We are a national leader, especially in early detection of foodborne disease. I am pleased that my colleague from Minnesota, Senator Klobuchar, has a great provision we hope will be in the final bill to enhance our Nation's foodborne illness surveillance.

Mandatory recall authority, traceability, more frequent inspections, better recordkeeping, and safer imported foods--these are just a few of the reasons why we need to get the food safety bill to the President's desk, and we need to get it there now. Not later, but now.

This is legislation that every member on the HELP Committee, on both sides of the aisle, voted to favorably report. Every Member of this body recognizes the importance of food safety to the American people. The FDA Food Safety Modernization Act will finally give the FDA the tools it needs to do its job and keep Americans safe. So I urge the majority leader to bring this critical legislation up before we head home in October. We can't afford to wait any longer.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, above the entrance of the U.S. Supreme Court are four words, and four words only: ``Equal Justice Under Law.''

I rise today to support the nomination of Solicitor General Elena Kagan to be an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. But I also rise today to put General Kagan's nomination in the context of the history of the Supreme Court and how that Court has affected the lives, the jobs, and the safety of working Americans.

I want to ask if working Americans are actually getting equal justice under law in the highest Court of our land. And I do not want to talk about the Court's impact on working Americans in terms of stare decisis or deference to the political branches or judicial modesty. I want to talk about this in terms of the real things that are happening to real people--real working people--right here in the United States.

In 2003, a 54-year-old man named Jack Gross was working for an insurance company in Iowa. A few years earlier, his company had chosen him to rewrite all of their policies in 1 year. And

he did it. In fact, he was one of the company's top employees. His 13 years of performance reviews placed him in the top 3 to 5 percent of the company.

But when his company merged with another company, Jack Gross got demoted. In fact, so did all of the other Iowa employees who were 50 or older. So Mr. Gross sued for age discrimination under a Federal law called the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. He went to trial before a jury of his peers, and he won.

The Roberts Court overturned that verdict. They said the Age Discrimination in Employment Act did not ban all kinds of age discrimination, only age discrimination where age was the single determinative reason for a firing or a demotion.

The funny thing is that before the Roberts Court decided this, no one had made that argument--not Gross, not the company, not Congress, no one. The Court just pulled it out of thin air in favor of the company.

Is that equal justice under law?

In 1979, Lilly Ledbetter went to work at a Goodyear tire plant in Gadsden, AL. She was also very good at her job. She even earned the company's top performance award. Being one of just a few women at the plant, she endured harassment that her male colleagues never faced.

But one day, after 19 years on the job, she found a note in her locker which told her she was making much less than her male coworkers. So she went to court and tried to get Goodyear to pay her the same thing they had paid the men who had her same job. She went to trial before a jury of her peers, and she won. The jury awarded Ms. Ledbetter $3 million.

But the Roberts Court struck down the award. Why? Because Lilly Ledbetter had not gone to court within 180 days of her first discriminatory paycheck decades earlier, even though she had no way of knowing what her male coworkers were making back then, even though the company continued to discriminate against her for decades after that, even though the Congress did not write the law that way.

Is that equal justice under law?

In February 1989, a man named Joe Banta was preparing for the herring fishing season in his hometown of Cordova, AK. For three generations, the Banta family had made their living fishing herring--as the Presiding Officer well knows this story--and digging for clams in Prince William Sound.

All of that ended on March 24, 1989, when the Exxon Valdez--the oil tanker--crashed into a reef and spilled hundreds of thousands of barrels of crude oil into the sound in the Presiding Officer's home State.

Shortly before leaving port, the captain of the Valdez had downed not one, not two, but five double Vodka shots. There was proof that Exxon knew full well about his alcohol problem. To this day we can find oil from the Exxon Valdez in the waters of Prince William Sound. To this day the herring in Prince William Sound have not come back. To this day generations of fishermen such as Joe Banta are out of work.

With the help of a Minnesota attorney, Brian O'Neill, the fishermen of Prince William Sound took Exxon to court. They took Exxon before a jury of their peers, and they won. The jury awarded them $5 billion. That is a fraction of Exxon's $45 billion in profit in 2008. But the Roberts Court slashed the verdict to one-tenth of its original size. Five million dollars is, of course, a lot of money, but it had to be divided among 32,000 people.

Here is the other thing: There was not a rule that called for this. There is no statute or precedent that said the Court had to cap the fishermen's damages. So the Roberts Court just made one up. They made up a cap for what the fishermen could recover--after the fishermen sued and got a verdict from a jury of their peers.

When the Court needed to justify that cap, it said jury verdicts were too unpredictable for companies and that even a ``bad man'' deserves reasonably predictable jury verdicts. This is the standard that will soon be applied to the fishermen of the gulf coast.

Is this equal justice under law?

Jack Gross, Lilly Ledbetter, and Joe Banta are not alone.

Since 2005, the Roberts Court has also struck down a century-old precedent that protected small business owners from price fixing. It has made it harder for investors to sue the firms that knowingly participated in a scheme to defraud them. In fact, it has made it harder for everyone to get their day in court, especially individual employees and investors.

It has removed half of the Nation's largest known polluters from coverage under the Clean Water Act. It has found that corporations-- corporations--have the same free speech rights in our elections as human beings.

When the Roberts Court chooses between corporate America and working Americans, it goes with corporate America almost every time, even when the citizens of this country, sitting in a duly appointed jury, have decided it the other way.

That is not right. It is not equal justice under the law.

Today we consider the nomination of Solicitor General Elena Kagan to a Court that has made those words an empty promise to most working Americans. It is fitting that General Kagan has been nominated for Justice Stevens' seat because the last three Justices to occupy this seat--Justice Stevens, Justice Douglas, and Justice Brandeis--were all deeply skeptical of corporate power. All three Justices rejected the idea that the Constitution cannot tell the difference between corporations and human beings.

Justice Louis Brandeis argued throughout his career that the massive wealth held by corporations was dangerous to democracy; that corporate interests could wield far too much influence, not because of the strength of their arguments but because of the size of their bank accounts. In fact, he wrote a book about this. It is called ``Other People's Money--and How Bankers Use It.'' In that book, Brandeis catalogued example after example of how Wall Street bankers took advantage of their position to enrich themselves at the expense of the American people. Does this sound familiar? And it was in this book that he famously stated that ``sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants''--that you have to train an unwavering spotlight on the schemes and machinations of corporate America.

After he joined the Supreme Court, Justice Brandeis wrote in a dissent in a 1933 case that our Nation's Founders understood the ``insidious menace inherent in large aggregations of capital, particularly when held by corporations,'' and that this ``difference in power between corporations and natural persons is ample basis''--ample basis--for treating them differently under the law.

Justice William Douglas joined the Supreme Court upon Justice Brandeis's retirement. Before joining the Court, Justice Douglas was Chairman of the SEC, where he crusaded for investor protections and led investigations into unethical corporations. While Chairman of the SEC, in an address to the Fordham University Alumni Association, Douglas warned that ``one aspect of modern life which has gone far to stifle men is the rapid growth of the tremendous corporation'' and that in these conglomerates, ``service to human beings becomes subordinate to profits.''

In a 1949 case, Justice Douglas wrote that if Americans ``want corporations to be treated as humans are treated, if they want to grant corporations this large degree of emancipation from state regulation, they should say so. [ . . . ] We should not do it for them through the guise of interpretation.'' Justice Douglas understood that corporations are not people, don't have the same rights as people, and that our laws are critical in keeping their power in check.

Justice Stevens continued this tradition. In Ledbetter, in Gross, in Exxon, in Stoneridge, in Rapanos, and in Citizens United, Justice Stevens fought the empowerment of big business at the expense of working Americans. In fact, in most of these cases, Justice Stevens led the dissent. He is the Justice who said in no uncertain terms that ``corporations are not a part of `We, the People,' by whom and for whom our Constitution was established.''

I have said it before--General Kagan has big shoes to fill. But after months of learning more about General Kagan and a week of confirmation hearings, I think it is safe to say there is no question she can do it.

Some have criticized General Kagan because she lacks experience as a

judge, even though 40 out of the 111 Justices in the Supreme Court's history had not been judges before they served on the High Court and even though Justice Scalia said only this January in a speech in Jackson, MS, that the Court needs Justices who haven't been judges.

It seems to me that Senators have been going to absurd lengths to discount General Kagan's qualifications. We even had a Senator in the hearings who acknowledged that, yes, there has been a long history of Justices who have never served previously as judges but that those Justices averaged more than 20 years of private practice experience, whereas General Kagan only worked for 2 years in a law firm. To me, this has a tortured ring of someone arguing that every southpaw Cy Young winner in the American League since the advent of the designated hitter has had a lower ERA in away games on AstroTurf than any right- hander.

To people making these kinds of arguments, I wish to say this: You only have one life. I think that in her 50 years, General Kagan has amassed an incredible record of service and accomplishment. She has been a clerk for a Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court; special counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee; a top adviser to the 42nd President of the United States; the first woman dean of Harvard Law School; and the first woman to be Solicitor General in the history of the United States. So is she qualified for the job? Of course. Of course she is. But General Kagan has done more than show she is qualified for the job; she has also shown she understands it. She has shown she understands the obligation of the Supreme Court to the American people and to the Congress that represents them.

For years, conservatives have warned that we should beware of activist judges who overreach their powers, that we should beware of judges who legislate from the bench. Now that the Roberts Court is in power, suddenly these same conservatives are saying there is really no such thing as judicial activism, it is all in the eye of the beholder, and that an activist judge is just a judge who issues decisions you don't like. But General Kagan hasn't taken the bait. General Kagan said there is such a thing as activism. She said it herself: An activist judge is a judge who doesn't defer to the policy decisions of the political branches, who doesn't respect precedent, and who doesn't decide cases narrowly, avoiding constitutional questions when possible. And when she said that, I think most people sitting in the committee room at her confirmation hearing liked that definition.

When you apply that definition to the Roberts Court--to the cases upon cases where the Roberts Court has limited the rights of workers or pensioners or investors or small business owners or voters--you find there is no question, no question whatsoever that this is an activist Court. It is a Court that has replaced Congress's policy judgments with its own perspective, with its own prejudices, a Court that has legislated from the bench.

But, as I said, in her confirmation hearings, General Kagan didn't just define activism, she didn't just acknowledge its existence, she also said clearly and repeatedly that she would avoid it. If she is confirmed and if we have a Justice Kagan, as I am certain we will, she will continue a long tradition of protecting and serving the American people. She will serve them with equal justice under law.

I urge all of my colleagues to support her nomination.

Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Doug Wilson and Romy Ganschow, two fellows in my office, be granted floor privileges for the duration of the debate on General Kagan's nomination.

Madam President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to allow debate on the DISCLOSE Act, a commonsense measure to fix just some of the problems created by the Citizens United decision.

For a century, Congress has done everything it could to make sure the American public has as much information as possible about the money being spent in our elections. The first Federal campaign finance disclosure law was passed in 1910, which scientists tell us was 100 years ago. It was strengthened in 1925. In the 1970s, it was replaced with an even stronger system as part of the Federal Election Campaign Act. Eight years ago, with McCain-Feingold, it was strengthened yet again. So the Congress has been in the disclosure business for 100 years. And, in fact, at every major step, the Supreme Court has actually affirmed Congress's power to pass these laws.

In 1934, the Court unanimously upheld the disclosure laws that Congress passed a decade earlier. In 1975, they upheld the disclosure provisions of the Federal Election Campaign Act. In 2003, they upheld the disclosure and disclaimer provisions of McCain-Feingold. Just this January in Citizens United--yes, in Citizens United--they voted 8 to 1 to uphold those same disclosure provisions again.

The disclosure provisions of the DISCLOSE Act are well in line with a century's worth of Federal statutes and precedent, at least according to the Burger Court, the Rehnquist Court, the Roberts Court, and the Hughes Court. I bet some of you have not heard of the Hughes Court. That was from 1934. So we can pass this law. We can do it. There should be a will to do it.

Here are some excerpts from a few Members' floor statements from the 107th Congress, the Congress that passed McCain-Feingold:

Clearly the American public has a right to know who is

paying for ads and who is attempting to influence elections.

Sunshine is what the political system needs.

Another Member said:

We can try to regulate ethical behavior by politicians, but

the surest way to cleanse the system is to let the Sun shine

in.

Here is yet another:

Disclosure helps everyone equally to know how their money

is spent. [ . . . ] Disclosure is what honesty and fairness

in politics is all about. Why would anyone fight against

disclosure?

These are actually the statements of friends of mine across the aisle who are still in this body who opposed McCain-Feingold and who opposed it in large part because they said it did not do enough on disclosure. In fact, a lot of them opposed it precisely because it did not do enough to promote disclosure of the independent expenditures of corporations and unions.

As my good friend Senator Hatch said in March of 2001:

The issue is expenditures, expenditures, expenditures; and

[ . . . ] the real issue, if we really want to do something

about campaign finance reform, is disclosure, disclosure,

disclosure.

I think he repeated it three times for emphasis.

This is what the minority leader said when he voted against the McCain-Feingold bill, as amended by the House, in March of 2002. This is the minority leader, Senator McConnell from Kentucky:

Reformers claim this bill will increase disclosure and

shine the light on big money and politics. This is, of

course, not true. Unions will continue to funnel hundreds of

millions of dollars of hard-working union member dues into

the political process without ever disclosing one red cent.

The protections my friends were waiting for are in the DISCLOSE Act, and they boil down to this: If someone is spending a lot of money in our elections, American voters will have a right to know whether that person is a corporation, a nonprofit, a union, or a 527.

Before I close, I want to discuss a part of this bill that does not have to do with disclosure, section 102.

Section 102 incorporates critical provisions of a bill I introduced, the American Elections Act. It will make sure that foreign interests-- foreign governments, foreign corporations, and individuals--cannot use American subsidiaries that they own or control to influence our elections.

The fact is, after Citizens United, the U.S. subsidiaries of foreign companies will be able to spend as much as they want in our elections, even if they are under foreign control.

I ask for another couple minutes.

I thank the Senator from Texas. The fact is, after Citizens United, the U.S. subsidiaries of foreign companies will be able to spend as much as they want in our elections, even if they are under foreign control. President Obama alluded to this in his State of the Union Address, and Justice Stevens said it explicitly in his dissent.

More and more American companies are coming under foreign ownership and control. According to the Congressional Research Service, between 1998 and 2007, there was a 50-percent increase in the number of mergers and acquisitions where a foreign firm acquired a U.S. firm. But our laws are out of date. They do not protect against election spending from those foreign-controlled companies.

There are basically only three restrictions on election spending by foreign companies: One, you cannot be headquartered or incorporated abroad. The subsidiary has to be headquartered here, such as BP America.

You cannot use money you have earned abroad in our elections. You can use money earned here.

You cannot let foreign citizens decide how to spend that money. But the boards of these companies kind of know how, Citgo, say, might want to spend its money. One company that could pass the test and spend unlimited amounts of their money in our elections is Citgo, 100-percent owned by Hugo Chavez and the Venezuela Government. Here is another company that can pass the test: British Petroleum or, rather, its subsidiary, British Petroleum America. This is unacceptable.

The DISCLOSE Act updates our laws and says that if a foreign entity has a controlling stake in a company, as defined by most States' corporate control standards--or if a foreign entity controls the board of directors of a company, that company should not spend one dime in our elections.

Madam President, I thank the Senator from Texas. I yield back my time. I have no time to yield back. I am done.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Thermal Renewable Energy and Efficiency, or TREEA, Act, on behalf of myself and Senator Bond. I want to thank him for working with me on this bill, which is inspired by models in both of our states. It is good policy for the environment, for creating jobs, and for increasing the efficiency of heating and cooling--a major yet often ignored part of our Nation's energy consumption.

As we think about carbon emissions and energy use, most of the conversation focuses on moving away from fossil fuels in the electric power sector. But over 30 percent of our country's energy use goes toward thermal energy--heating or cooling our homes, public buildings, or industrial facilities. Thermal energy is enormously important for my state of Minnesota, whether we're talking about heating in the midst of a cold snowy winter or air conditioning on a blazing summer day, when additional plants have to kick in to meet the demand.

Unfortunately, as we talk about changing the way we produce and use energy, thermal energy is usually ignored. We talk about producing significantly more of our electricity from renewables like solar, geothermal, or biomass. But what we forget is that we can much more efficiently produce thermal from these sources than we can from electricity. After all, when we are talking about energy efficiency, we are talking about how much of the energy produced from a given fuel is not lost as heat. Well, that heat has a value. That is heat that can heat the homes and buildings in Minnesota when it's 30 below zero.

That is what District energy systems have done in Minnesota and around the country. They supply hot water or steam and chilled water to buildings through underground pipes for space heating, domestic hot water, air conditioning, and industrial processes. There are tremendous efficiencies in heating and cooling buildings this way. Each building doesn't have to have its own boiler, and instead of burning fuel to produce electricity to heat a building, you take the heat directly from the fuel and put it to productive use.

When you use renewable fuel to produce thermal energy--whether it's biomass, geothermal, or solar-thermal--you cut down on greenhouse gas emissions at the same time. So capturing and efficiently using thermal energy is a win-win-win. It is a win for the environment through lower greenhouse gas emissions and much higher fuel efficiency. It is a win for consumers and businesses, who get low, stable heating prices. It is a win for the economy, because building and maintaining these systems creates jobs.

Minnesota is a national leader in thermal energy--in St. Paul, we have the largest District Energy system in North America. Most of the buildings in downtown St. Paul are heated and cooled using energy that literally comes from residents' backyards--tree trimmings and other waste wood.

What does this mean? It means less electricity usage for heating and cooling, which frees up strain on the grid during hot summer days and freezing winter nights. It means stable heating prices for consumers and businesses--thermal systems are flexible in their fuel and can switch to the lowest cost fuel at any time. And if these systems run on renewable fuels, it means less pollution contributing to global warming.

But there are some barriers to overcome. Right now, the renewable energy production tax credit is only available for electricity generated from renewables. We need to recognize the usefulness of thermal energy as well, and hence extend the production credit to the generation of thermal energy from renewables. That is exactly what our bill does: it allows thermal-only or combined heat and power facilities to access the production tax credit for their thermal energy, if it's produced from renewables.

We also need to make some tweaks to existing financing structures like tax exempt bonds. Currently, these can be used for financing district energy piping distribution systems, but not the plant facilities for producing the heating and cooling. Our bill would change this. Finally, we need to make sure that the grant programs authorized in the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act are structured in a way that actually is helpful to thermal and combined heat and power facilities. Our bill raises the grant caps for those programs to more realistic levels that will allow large, more efficient projects to qualify.

This legislation is ultimately about being smarter on how we use energy. It increases our energy efficiency, helps reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and creates clean energy jobs. That is why it has the support of environmental groups, labor groups, the district energy and combined heat and power industry, and organizations promoting energy efficiency.

I am very proud to be introducing this bill with my friend from Missouri, and I look forward to working with all of my colleagues to make these modest changes to improve our use of thermal energy.

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

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Thermal Renewable Energy and Efficiency, or TREEA, Act, on behalf of myself and Senator Bond. I want to thank him for working with me on this bill, which is inspired by models in both of our states. It is good policy for the environment, for creating jobs, and for increasing the efficiency of heating and cooling--a major yet often ignored part of our Nation's energy consumption.

As we think about carbon emissions and energy use, most of the conversation focuses on moving away from fossil fuels in the electric power sector. But over 30 percent of our country's energy use goes toward thermal energy--heating or cooling our homes, public buildings, or industrial facilities. Thermal energy is enormously important for my state of Minnesota, whether we're talking about heating in the midst of a cold snowy winter or air conditioning on a blazing summer day, when additional plants have to kick in to meet the demand.

Unfortunately, as we talk about changing the way we produce and use energy, thermal energy is usually ignored. We talk about producing significantly more of our electricity from renewables like solar, geothermal, or biomass. But what we forget is that we can much more efficiently produce thermal from these sources than we can from electricity. After all, when we are talking about energy efficiency, we are talking about how much of the energy produced from a given fuel is not lost as heat. Well, that heat has a value. That is heat that can heat the homes and buildings in Minnesota when it's 30 below zero.

That is what District energy systems have done in Minnesota and around the country. They supply hot water or steam and chilled water to buildings through underground pipes for space heating, domestic hot water, air conditioning, and industrial processes. There are tremendous efficiencies in heating and cooling buildings this way. Each building doesn't have to have its own boiler, and instead of burning fuel to produce electricity to heat a building, you take the heat directly from the fuel and put it to productive use.

When you use renewable fuel to produce thermal energy--whether it's biomass, geothermal, or solar-thermal--you cut down on greenhouse gas emissions at the same time. So capturing and efficiently using thermal energy is a win-win-win. It is a win for the environment through lower greenhouse gas emissions and much higher fuel efficiency. It is a win for consumers and businesses, who get low, stable heating prices. It is a win for the economy, because building and maintaining these systems creates jobs.

Minnesota is a national leader in thermal energy--in St. Paul, we have the largest District Energy system in North America. Most of the buildings in downtown St. Paul are heated and cooled using energy that literally comes from residents' backyards--tree trimmings and other waste wood.

What does this mean? It means less electricity usage for heating and cooling, which frees up strain on the grid during hot summer days and freezing winter nights. It means stable heating prices for consumers and businesses--thermal systems are flexible in their fuel and can switch to the lowest cost fuel at any time. And if these systems run on renewable fuels, it means less pollution contributing to global warming.

But there are some barriers to overcome. Right now, the renewable energy production tax credit is only available for electricity generated from renewables. We need to recognize the usefulness of thermal energy as well, and hence extend the production credit to the generation of thermal energy from renewables. That is exactly what our bill does: it allows thermal-only or combined heat and power facilities to access the production tax credit for their thermal energy, if it's produced from renewables.

We also need to make some tweaks to existing financing structures like tax exempt bonds. Currently, these can be used for financing district energy piping distribution systems, but not the plant facilities for producing the heating and cooling. Our bill would change this. Finally, we need to make sure that the grant programs authorized in the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act are structured in a way that actually is helpful to thermal and combined heat and power facilities. Our bill raises the grant caps for those programs to more realistic levels that will allow large, more efficient projects to qualify.

This legislation is ultimately about being smarter on how we use energy. It increases our energy efficiency, helps reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and creates clean energy jobs. That is why it has the support of environmental groups, labor groups, the district energy and combined heat and power industry, and organizations promoting energy efficiency.

I am very proud to be introducing this bill with my friend from Missouri, and I look forward to working with all of my colleagues to make these modest changes to improve our use of thermal energy.

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