Floor Statements

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for the purposes of introducing a very poignant bill.

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

Mr. President, today I rise to introduce legislation that I am calling ``Rosa's Law.'' It began by listening to the people in my own State. It began when a mother told me a compelling story about her own daughter, her family's efforts to give her daughter an opportunity for an education and to be treated with respect and with dignity. And, at the same time, it began with the advocacy of not only she and her husband but of her entire family, including her 14 year old son, Nick, who testified at the Maryland General Assembly.

As a result of their effort, I am introducing Rosa's Law. But I want to tell you about the family. I want to tell you about the Marcellinos--two determined parents with four children: Nick, age 14; Madeleine, age 12; Gigi, age 10; and Rosa, age 8. I wish you could have been with me in my office as I met with them, as I met with the parents and talked with the family.

Last year, at a roundtable on special education, I met Nina Marcellino. She told me about her daughter Rosa and the fact that Rosa had been labeled at her school some years ago as ``mentally retarded'' and told me of the stigma, the pain, the anguish it caused both Nina and her husband, Rosa's brother and sisters as well as Rosa herself.

The mother and father reached out to the advocacy organization, the Arc, to see what could be done to change the law. They then reached out to a member of the Maryland General Assembly in our own Maryland Legislature--a wonderful representative named Ted Sophocleus.

Mr. Sophocleus introduced legislation in the Maryland General Assembly that would change the words ``mentally retarded'' and substitute that with the phrase ``an individual with an intellectual disability.''

That is why I stand on the Senate floor today to introduce, at the request of this family, legislation on behalf of this little girl and on behalf of all of the children of the United States of America who are labeled, stigmatized, and bear a burden the rest of their lives because of the language we use in the law books.

My law simply changes the phrase ``mentally retarded'' to an ``individual with an intellectual disability.'' We do it in health, education, and labor policy without in any way negatively impinging upon either the educational or other benefits to which these children are entitled.

When it came time to bring the bill before the General Assembly, the family was there. And who spoke up for Rosa? Well, her mom and dad had been speaking up for her. Her brother Nick and her sisters Madeleine and Gigi had been speaking up for her. This wonderful boy, Nick, at the time 13 testified before the general assembly and said:

What you call people is how you treat them.

``What you call people is how you treat them.'' What you call my sister is how you will treat her. If you believe she is ``retarded,'' it invites taunts, it invites stigmas, it invites bullying, and it also invites the slammed doors of not being treated with respect and dignity.

Nick's words were far more eloquent that day than mine are today. I want to salute Nick for standing up for his sister. But I think we need to stand up for all because in changing the language we believe it will be the start of new attitudes toward people with intellectual disabilities. Hopefully, people will associate these new words with the very able and valuable people that go to school, work, play soccer, or live next door.

Eunice Shriver believed in this when she created the Special Olympics. She knew special needs children need special attention, but they can do very special things and look what she started.

This bill has gotten unanimous support in the Maryland legislative body. It passed in Annapolis. A few weeks before this bill swept through the General Assembly, I had the opportunity to talk to Rosa's mom, Nina. I promised her then that if that bill passed the Maryland Legislature, I would bring it to the floor of the Senate. Well, it passed unanimously, Governor O'Malley has signed it, and today I stand before you introducing the legislation.

It makes nominal changes to policy. It gets into Federal education, health, and labor law. It simply substitutes ``intellectual disability'' for ``mental retardation,'' ``individual with an intellectual disability'' for ``mentally retarded.''

This bill, as I can assure all who might be concerned, will not expand nor diminish services, rights, or educational opportunities. We vetted it with legal counsel. We reached out to the very wonderful advocacy groups in this field, and they concur that this legislation would be acceptable.

The Senate has changed terminology for this population before. In the 1960s, Congress passed legislation where we took--I am almost embarrassed to say our law once referred to boys and girls as ``feeble- minded.'' We thought we were being advanced when we changed it to ``mentally retarded.'' Now, 40 years later, let's take another big step and change it to ``intellectual disability.''

This bill makes language used in the Federal Government consistent. The President's Committee on Mental Retardation was changed by Executive order so it is now the Committee on Individuals with Intellectual Disabilities. The CDC uses ``intellectual disability.'' The World Health Organization uses ``intellectual disability.''

I have always said the best ideas come from the people. ``Rosa's Law'' is a perfect example of effective citizen advocacy--a family that pulled together for their own, and in pulling together they are pulling us all along to a new way of thinking.

I want to recognize the Marcellino family who is here with us in the gallery, and the namesake of the law, Rosa, whose picture is behind me, and she is also up there in the gallery today.

It was indeed an honor to represent this family. I believe in our country people have a right to be heard, and we listen. They have a right to be represented, which I have tried to do. Now let's try to change the law.

I also want to take this opportunity to thank my colleagues. It is a pleasure to work with Senators Harkin and Enzi, the chair and ranking member of the HELP Committee. I have their wholehearted support in working together.

This is going to be a bipartisan bill. It is going to be a nonpartisan bill. We are going to check our party hats at the door and move ahead and tip our hats to these boys and girls. This bill is driven by passion for social justice and compassion for the human condition. We have done a lot to come out of the dark ages of institutionalization and exclusion when it comes to people with intellectual disabilities.

I urge my colleagues to join me in going a step further. Cosponsor the legislation I offer on a bipartisan basis. Help me pass the law and know that each and every one of us can make a difference. When we work together, we can make change. I look forward to working with my colleagues in moving this bill forward in our legislative process.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on November 17, 2009, at 10:30 a.m., in room 562 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on November 17, 2009, at 3 p.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Protecting Consumers From Abusive Overdraft Fees: The Fairness and Accountability in Receiving Overdraft Coverage Act.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on November 17, 2009, at 2:30 p.m., in room

253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on November 17, 2009, at 10 a.m., in room SD- 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on November 17, 2009, at 2:15 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on November 17, 2009, at 3 p.m., to hold a hearing entitled ``The U.S. and the G-20: Remaking the International Economic Architecture.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on November 17, 2009, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``H1N1 Flu: Getting the Vaccine to Where It Is Most Needed.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on November 17, 2009, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on November 17, 2009, at 10:30 a.m., to hold a Subcommittee on African Affairs hearing entitled ``Counterterrorism in the Trans-Sahel: Examining U.S. Strategy.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary, Sub Committee on Terrorism and Homeland Security, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on November 17, 2009, at 10 a.m. in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Cybersecurity: Preventing Terrorist Attacks and Protecting Privacy in Cyberspace.''

Mr. President, I rise to speak on the bill and urge its quick and prompt adoption.

In doing so, I wish to pay tribute to a fallen warrior from the State of Maryland who died in the terrible massacre at Fort Hood. I wish to express my condolences to all families who suffered the loss of life or were injured at that terrible shooting. It was a terrible tragedy for them at Fort Hood, for their families, and for our country.

We know the 13 families are now dealing with the loss of loved ones, and 30 other families have members who were wounded in the attack. We in Maryland suffered a casualty as well. I am here today to pay my respects and express my condolences to the family of LTC Juanita Warman, a wonderful woman who moved to Maryland 5 years ago as a call to duty. She had a 25-year military career in both the Active and Reserve Army. She devoted her career to serving fellow soldiers.

Lieutenant Colonel Warman was a nurse practitioner. Her field was in psychiatric and emotional counseling. She served in other parts of the country and came as a call to duty to Perry Point Veterans Hospital in Maryland. There she served to help our wounded warriors. Perry Point is the designated facility in Maryland to help wounded warriors, those who bear the permanent injury of war, who bear the wounds of either emotional or mental illness. She was absolutely on their side. She was viewed as a consummate professional by her colleagues and by the people who relied upon her for her talented counseling.

A master's degree in nursing, she was an expert in posttraumatic stress as well as traumatic brain injury. She devoted her career to helping these soldiers as she did her family. Her family saw her as a mother to two, a grandmother to eight, and two stepchildren as well. She was raised in a military family. She understood the bonds between fellow soldiers. She also volunteered as part of a program called the Maryland Yellow Ribbon Program to help soldiers reintegrate into the community. She developed guidelines to dispel myths about PTSD. She particularly would reach out to women soldiers who had unique challenges, both in their own life and the lives of their families.

She provided mental health counseling to soldiers coming out of a war zone trying to come into a family zone so that family zone didn't become a battleground as well. She also was well known for her work at Ramstein Hospital. She traveled there in many instances to help our soldiers make the transition from battlefield to the hospital in Germany to back here. She received an Army commendation medal for her meritorious service at Ramstein. She was a great soldier.

She was at Fort Hood less than 24 hours. She was getting ready to deploy to Iraq. She was ready to go, though she was sad to go. From her last posting on Facebook, she knew she would be away for the holidays from her beloved husband Philip, her children, grandchildren, and stepchildren. But there were no stepchildren; they were all her children to Lieutenant Colonel Warman.

We are going to miss her. Her family is going to miss her. We are going to miss her in Maryland because she was an active member of the community. The Army is going to miss her. Most of all, those who need mental health counseling will miss her. We are so sorry this happened to her.

There will be those who will want to wear yellow ribbons and black armbands and have flags at half mast. And we should. We should do all the symbols to honor what happened to those who fell at Fort Hood. But the best way to honor the people in the massacre at Fort Hood, to honor the people who have been wounded in Iraq or Afghanistan is to pass this legislation.

The legislation pending is the Military Construction and VA health bill. There is so much good in this bill that will provide medical services to those who bear the permanent and sometimes invisible wounds of war. While we want to salute those who fell at Fort Hood and on the battlegrounds of Iraq and Afghanistan, the way we honor their memory and their service, the service of all who have been abroad, is by making sure when they come home, they get the medical and social services they need, a bridge to get them back into civilian life.

Again, my condolences to the Warman family and to all who fell, but most of all I thank everybody for their service. Let's thank them not only with words but with deeds. Let's pass this bill.

I yield the floor.

Amendment No. 2740 to Amendment No. 2730

Mr. President, how much time is remaining on both sides for morning business?

Mr. President, I would like to speak on health care. I note with interest the remarks of the Senator from Tennessee. I think there is former bipartisan agreement, but everybody says let's go through this step by step. The Congress has had an extensive health care debate. We in the HELP Committee have had extensive hearings, and we had a markup of our bill that lasted more than 3 weeks and had over 350 amendments, of which 75 percent were offered by the other side. We offered many of those amendments. When all was said and done, they voted no. So we don't know when good would be good enough. It is one thing to disagree on policy; it is another thing to want to do a filibuster by proxy, which is what we encountered in the committees with the increased volume of amendments.

We need health care reform, and we need it now. We need it in a way that accomplishes the goal of saving lives, improving lives and, at the same time, controlling costs.

No. 1, I think we all agree, we need to save and stabilize Medicare. The other thing we need to do is end the punitive practices of insurance companies.

I am going to tell you a bone-chilling story. I held a hearing in the HELP Committee on how health insurance in the private sector treats women. First, we pay more and get less benefits. But also what happened and what emerged is that a woman who applied for health care who had a C-section was denied by a Minnesota company unless she got a sterilization.

Did you hear what I said? An insurance company told an American woman, to get health insurance, she had to have a sterilization. Is this fascist China, fascist Germany? Is this Communist China? This is the United States of America. We were outraged.

I have been in touch with this insurance company. I got lipservice promises, blow-off letters from their lawyers, and stuff like that. I am ready with an amendment on the floor. We have to get rid of these punitive practices of denying health care on the basis of a previous condition. And then, not only doing that because of a C-section, but then to engage in a coercive way to force a sterilization.

So you think I want reform? You better believe I do. And I think I speak for the majority of the country who feels this way and the good men, such as the Presiding Officer, who will support us on it. I will have an amendment to deal with this if the insurance company continues to blow me off.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, very shortly, we will vote on cloture on the CJS bill. As the chairperson of the committee, I wish to say that we want to finish this today so we can move forward with the blessing and the business of funding--Mr. President, I have to yield the floor a moment. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, reclaiming my time as the manager of the bill, I wish to bring to my colleagues' attention that at 12:25 p.m. today, we are going to vote on cloture of the Commerce-Justice-Science appropriations bill. We wish to finish this bill today. When I say ``we,'' I mean Senator Shelby, my ranking member, and myself.

This bill is the result of a rigorous bipartisan effort to fund the Department of Justice, including the FBI and DEA, the Commerce Department, and major science agencies that propel our country in the area of innovation and technology development, such as the National Science Foundation and the National Space Agency.

We want the Senate to be able to deal with this and then move on to other business.

After the cloture vote, it is our intention to dispose of any pending amendments that are germane to the bill. This bill has been public since June. It has been on the floor already for 4 days and over 20 hours. Senators have had ample time to draft and call up their amendments. Senator Shelby and I hope to be able to move through the amendments in a well-paced but brisk fashion.

We hope our colleagues will cooperate and have any decisions relating to the funding of these important agencies be decided on robust debate and the merits of the argument rather than delay and dither, delay and dither, delay-and-dither tactics of the other side. We don't want to delay. We don't want to dither. We want to proceed, debate germane amendments, and bring our bill to a prompt closure.

Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.

I object, Mr. President. The intention is to vote on cloture and dispose of pending germane amendments. The Senator's amendment is not pending, so I do object, with all courtesy because of my respect for the Senator.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

Is the Senator offering an amendment or giving a speech about the desire to offer an amendment?

Mr. President, I object to the amendment. The intention is to vote on cloture and dispose of pending germane amendments. The Senator's amendment is not pending, so I object.

Mr. President, I object to the Senator's amendment, and I object to the arguments he has made.

First of all, we adopt cloture so that we can proceed on amendments that are germane. Second, in terms of the inaccurate accusation that we are plowing ahead and forging forward, we were on this bill for 4 days, with over 20 hours of debate. There was plenty of time to talk about this amendment, and I was here and ready to engage.

The other thing is that there have been other times--since my bill was pulled from the floor--called morning business, when a Senator could talk for any length of time on any topic he or she wants. Yet silence, silence, silence. So don't use the cloture vote as a way to say there wasn't enough time.

Now let's go to being asleep at the switch. Two accusations were made--the ballooning of the census cost. Well, one of the reasons and the main reason the cost is exploding is that the party in power prior to 2008 was asleep at the switch with the census. They completely dropped the ball on the new technology for being able to go door to door to get a count. It turned into a big techno-boondoggle. It finally took the Secretary of Commerce to uncover that under that rock was another rock, and under that rock were a lot of buckets of malfunctioning microchips. So we had to bail out Secretary Gutierrez and the census because of the techno-boondoggle because the other party was asleep at the switch in maintaining strict quality controls.

Now let's go to the asking of another question. The Senator from Louisiana says he wants to stand up for his State. I agree, we have to stand up for the States, but the time to stand up was in April of 2007. Did you know that the Census is mandated by law to submit the questionnaires to Congress--and they did? So for 1 year, from April 1, 2007, to the close of the review by Congress 1 year later, April 2008, there was plenty of time to say: We don't like the questionnaire; we want to add a citizenship question. That was the time and the place. When you are going to stand up for your State, stand up at the right time to make a difference and not try to amend the law in a way that is going to create administrative havoc.

We can debate the merits of the question, but I am here as an appropriator on the process. The Census Bureau did meet its statutory responsibility. It submitted the questionnaire to the Congress on April 1, 2007. It did not come by stealth in the night, it was not written in invisible ink, it was written in English here for all to see--and also in other languages we could test and use--to say: Do you, Congress, like this questionnaire? Do you have any comments? For all those who want to stand up, that was the time to do it and the time to make a change.

Let's talk about the consequences. It will delay the census so we could essentially not meet our constitutional mandate of having the census done in a timely way. No. 2, it will cost, if we did not do it, another $1 billion and wreak, again, administrative havoc.

Let's go into this whole claim about citizens and noncitizens. The census already tracks the number of citizens and noncitzens through a separate survey. We could talk about what this will mean in reapportionment and so on. Those questions are for debates that lie with the Judiciary Committee.

We are not going to vote up or down on the Vitter amendment, we are going to vote on cloture. Why is cloture important? So we do not have distracting amendments that are better offered on the appropriate substance of the bill. We have to fund the State, Commerce, Justice, Science agencies. The FBI needs us to fund this agency. The Marshals Service needs us to fund this agency. Federal law enforcement, our Federal prisons--you might not like whom the Obama administration puts in Federal prisons, but we need Federal prisons. So we need to pass cloture so we can dispose of germane amendments and move democracy forward.

Mr. President, how much time do I have?

I wish to reserve my time. Did the Senator from Kansas have a question?

Mr. President, we are not prepared to yield back any time. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Certainly.

That is one heck of an argument, I respond to the Senator from Kansas. I have great admiration for the Marine Corps. If the Semper Fi guys call and you need to cut the cake, I will certainly be willing to cooperate.

Seriously, our congratulations to the U.S. Marine Corps on their birthday. We value them for what they have done in their most recent conflicts and their incredible history. They are truly Semper Fi. In the spirit of what I hope will be the comity of the day, the civility of

the day, we yield back our time in order to permit the vote.

I ask for the regular order.

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

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

Mr. President, our colleague from Pennsylvania, Senator Specter, just gave an eloquent speech on why the Supreme Court should be televised and how it would provide greater openness and transparency were decisions being made in the public's eye. I think that argument was very interesting. But there is one institution that is absolutely on television already, and that is the Congress of the United States. Through C-SPAN, what goes on in this Chamber and often in the committee rooms goes out all over America. We get phone calls, in many instances, from the C-SPAN watchers. I think it is an outstanding tool.

Someone watching what is going on all day would wonder: What are they doing? We have kind of lost sight, given some of the amendments that were offered, of just what is the pending business on the floor of the Senate today. As the person who chairs the Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice and Science, I would like to remind the American people watching, and my colleagues, what is the pending business.

The pending business is how should we best fund those important agencies at the Commerce Department that promote trade and scientific innovation; also the Justice Department, rendering impartial justice, enforcing the laws that are on the books; to important science agencies, such as the American space program. What the appropriations bill does is it determines what goes in the Federal checkbook to fund these programs.

I am very proud of the way we, in our subcommittee, have worked on a bipartisan basis to bring a bill to the Senate floor that we believe reflects national priorities. I have worked hand in hand with my ranking member, the Republican Senator from Alabama, Mr. Shelby, and we wrote good legislation.

What do we like about it? First of all, what we like about it is that we want to promote innovation and competition in our society. We are in a terrible economic mess. Our economy is rocking and rolling. The fact is, we still do not have jobs. What about these jobs? What do we do? I want to talk about the role of the Commerce Department in coming up with new ideas, making sure we have innovation from the government. Innovation is important because it is the new ideas that create the new products that create the new jobs.

I note the Presiding Officer is from the State of Ohio. There, as in my State, manufacturing has been very hard hit. Many of the traditional ways of life are not there. We have to look ahead to what is promoting innovation-friendly government. Right there in the Commerce Department is the Bureau of Industry and Security, which makes sure we are able to provide exports of our technology. We have the Patent and Trademark Office, which is guardian of our intellectual property around the world. It protects ideas and those who come up with inventions as private property, the hallmark of capitalism--the ability to own private

property and benefit from the fruits of your labor in an open and competitive marketplace. We would fund that.

When you come up with new products, you also have to have standards so a yardstick is the same in the United States as in any other country--or the metric system. What the National Institute of Standards does is it sets standards for products that will enable the private sector to compete among themselves and around the world. I am proud of them. They are located in Maryland, but even if they were located in Utah or Wyoming I would be proud of them because it is there that they set the standards which help set the pace for America to compete.

Much is said about our arms race, but one of the races we have been in is the race for America's future. One of the agencies that is the greatest inventor of technology has been the National Space Agency. We have all been thrilled to watch our astronauts go into space. Many of us, particularly this summer, were excited about the bold and courageous astronauts because they were able to retrofit Hubble with new batteries and a new camera so we could do the scientific work needed to send Hubble on its final journey. It is at the National Space Agency, though, that so much invention of new technology occurs.

As someone who has spoken out so much for women's health, and also the desire to prevent breast cancer, one of the things I am proud of is out of NASA's x-ray technology we have been able to develop other products for the civilian population, such as digital mammography.

A few months ago I broke my ankle and then wore a boot that looked like a space boot. It looked like a space boot because it maybe was-- well, not mine. I would love to wear a space boot worn by Sally Ride or one of the great women astronauts. But the fact is, it is because of the technology that was developed to protect our astronauts that we now know how to protect us on Earth. This is what we are talking about.

Should we fund these agencies? Should we be able to make public investments that lead to private sector jobs? While we are fighting over should we have this prisoner over at Gitmo or other kinds of provocative social questions, we have a duty to promote those agencies that promote private sector jobs.

The other area I am very proud of in this bill is our support of law enforcement. Yes, we support Federal law enforcement, our FBI, our Marshal Service, as well as our Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. But I am also proud that we support that thin blue line of local law enforcement. For many of our communities, mayors and county executives are stretched to the limit. Sometimes people who commit crimes are better armed and have the latest technology, more than our cops on the beat. Through a program called the Byrne grants they are able to apply for Federal funds to be able to modernize themselves.

We don't want to hold up the funding. We want this bill to go ahead. We want things to happen. That is what this bill is. We have worked hard. Senator Shelby and I held hearings, we held meetings, we met with local law enforcement.

We took the time to meet with people who have been victims, battered women. We fund the Violence Against Women Act. Do you know, since Joe Biden created that program, over 1 million people have called on the hotline; that we have protected over 1 million women from being abused and maybe even facing violence of such a degree that it threatened their lives?

This is not only about spending. These are about public investments that protect our communities and protect American jobs. I hope my colleagues will come and agree to complete discussion on their amendments so we can complete votes and bring this to a close so we can go to a conference with the House.

I note the Senator from Louisiana is on the Senate floor. I want to single her out, as they say in the colloquial: Do a shout-out. The Senator is well known for her work on adoption, and I salute her for that. Also, international adoption, making sure the laws are made and making sure, as people seek international adoption, there is not the exploitation of those children. We work with that in our bill. We also make sure we protect missing and exploited children in their own country.

You know, we see horrific, ghoulish, and grisly things done to young people who have been picked up. But thanks to the Adam Walsh Act, the Missing Children and Exploitation Act, we are stopping that. We have tough laws now against sexual predators and a way to keep them off the streets and to keep them registered. We have the money in the Federal checkbook to do that.

I really like this subcommittee because it does protect American jobs. It does protect American communities. It does protect the American people. I hope that today we can conclude our debate on the five pending amendments, move to a vote and try to get our country and our economy back again.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, as the chairman of the Commerce, Justice, Science Committee, I ask unanimous consent that all postcloture time be yielded back, except the 10 minutes specified for debate as noted in this agreement; that the Senate now resume the Coburn amendments Nos. 2631 and 2667, and that prior to the votes in relation to each amendment in the order listed, there be 2 minutes of debate, equally divided and controlled in the usual form; that upon the use or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the amendments; that upon the disposition of the Coburn amendments, the Senate resume consideration of the Graham amendment No. 2669, and that prior to a vote in relation to the amendment, there be 4 minutes of debate, equally divided and controlled between Senators Graham and Leahy or their designees; that upon the use or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the amendment; that upon disposition of the Graham amendment, the Senate then resume the Ensign amendment No. 2648, as modified; that there be 2 minutes of debate, equally divided and controlled in the usual form, prior to a vote in relation to the amendment; that upon disposition of the Ensign amendment, the Senate resume the Johanns amendment No. 2393; that the amendment be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no amendments in order to the aforementioned amendments; that no further amendments be in order; that the substitute amendment, as amended, be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read a third time, and the Senate then proceed to vote on passage of the bill; that upon passage, the Senate insist on its amendment, request a conference with the House on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses, and that the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees, with the subcommittee plus Senators Byrd and Cochran appointed as conferees; that if a point of order is raised and sustained against the substitute amendment, then it be in order for a new substitute to be offered, minus the offending provisions but including any amendments previously agreed to; that the new substitute be considered and agreed to, no further amendments be in order, the bill, as amended, be read a third time, with the provisions of this agreement after adoption of the original substitute amendment remaining in effect; and that the cloture motion on the bill be withdrawn; and that the order commence after the remarks of Senator Chambliss.

Mr. President, as in executive session, I ask unanimous consent that upon disposition of H.R. 2847, the Senate proceed to executive session and immediately proceed to vote on confirmation of the nomination of Calendar No. 462, and that upon confirmation, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table; that no further motions be in order, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then resume legislative session.

Mr. President, what is the pending amendment?

Mr. President, I vigorously and unabashedly oppose the Coburn amendment. It eliminates not only the dollars from the science program at the National Science Foundation, it specifically targets the $9 million cut in the area of funding for research by political scientists.

The very first American woman to win the Nobel Prize for economics ever has received 28 awards from the National Science Foundation, the science program offered to political science professors. It shows what groundbreaking work can be done.

This amendment is an attack on science. It is an attack on academia. We need full funding to keep America innovative, and I urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment.

Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of our time, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I share the concerns of the Senator from Oklahoma about oversight at the Department of Commerce. That is why the bill already funds the inspector general at $25.8 million, the same as the President's request. There is an additional $6 million furnished through the stimulus.

This amendment does cut the Hoover Building and it would only delay the renovations to meet basic health and safety standards. I oppose the amendment. The amendment would cause the CJS bill to exceed its allocation. Therefore, I make a point of order that the amendment violates section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

Mr. President, I support every comment made by my ranking member. I believe this amendment will cause the CJS bill to exceed its allocation, therefore I make a point of order the amendment violates section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order to make a point of order against the remaining amendments.

I make a point of order en bloc that amendments Nos. 2644, 2627, 2646, 2625, 2642, and 2632 are either not germane postcloture or violate rule XVI.

Mr. President, not withstanding the order regarding the passage of H.R. 2847, I now ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 2647, as modified, be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Yes, I am aware of these two important initiatives I know from the COMPETES Act, which I was integrally involved in with the Senator, that one of the more important policy questions is what effect research and development has on gross domestic product. There are many estimates that it is substantial and it is an important question for Congress to consider.

Yes, I am aware of the initiative and it is important we understand how the recent prices increases for the energy we use affects the overall gross domestic product.

I thank Senator Bingaman. I will work with the House and Senate conferees to give these two important initiatives the consideration they deserve.

Certainly, I thank the Senator for his kind words. As the Senator noted, I am a strong supporter of the COPS Hiring Program. This year in particular, we faced difficult funding decisions and had to juggle a number of priorities because we were trying to make up for years of underinvestment in Justice Department programs. That is why our fiscal year 2010 CJS spending bill provides $100 million for the COPS Hiring Program to put an additional 500 cops on the beat, patrolling our streets and protecting our families. As we move forward to conference with the House, I expect to hear from Democratic members about the need to increase those funds. I intend to do my part in conference to see that this program remains a high priority in the conference report.

I agree that we need to do all we can to help our police officers to ensure they are not walking a thin blue line. Our cops need a full team to combat violence, protect families, and fight the crime that's destroying neighborhoods. The funding provided in the stimulus went a long way toward helping put cops back on the beat. It is clear that the demand and needs of local communities are high. The Senators tireless advocacy for his State's law enforcement is much appreciated. The Senator has made his point loud and clear, and I know we will continue to hear from him on the importance of the COPS Hiring Program as we move into conference.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on November 5, 2009, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on November 5, 2009, at 9 a.m. in room 406 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on November 5, 2009, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Employment Non-Discrimination Act: Ensuring Opportunity for All Americans'' on November 5, 2009. The hearing will commence at 10 a.m. in room 430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on November 5, 2009, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``Business Formation and Financial Crime: Finding a Legislative Solution.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on November 5, 2009, at 10 a.m., in SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct an executive business meeting.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on November 5, 2009 at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing on VA and Indian Health Service Cooperation. The Committee will meet in room 418 of the Russell Senate Office Building beginning at 10 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on November 5, 2009, at 3 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Crime and Drugs, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on November 5, 2009, at 2 p.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``The First Line of Defense: Reducing Recidivism at the Local Level.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Water and Power be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate to conduct a hearing on November 5, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, on behalf of Senator Durbin, that Richard Burkard, a detailee from the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Subcommittee, be granted the privilege of the floor during the consideration of the Commerce- Justice-Science Appropriations Act and any votes thereon.

Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce the National Great Black Americans Commemoration Act. I am proud to sponsor this legislation along with Senator Cardin. African Americans have a rich history that must be cherished and remembered. This bill will honor African American leaders from across the country by helping to preserve their names, faces, and stories for generations to come.

This legislation will provide continued Federal assistance to expand exhibits and educational programs at the National Great Blacks in Wax Museum and Justice Learning Center in Baltimore, MD. Some of the memorialized figures are household names, like: Frederick Douglass, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and President Barack Obama. Yet many more are unfamiliar, like the 22 African Americans who served in Congress in the 1800s. It is time we give these pioneers the recognition they deserve.

Maryland is proud to be home to so many important figures in African American history. From the dark days of slavery through the civil rights movement, Marylanders have led the way. The brilliant Frederick Douglass was the voice of the voiceless in the struggle against slavery. The courageous Harriet Tubman delivered 300 slaves to freedom on the Underground Railroad. The great Thurgood Marshall, a man who was no stranger to the restriction of educational opportunity, successfully argued the Brown

v. Board of Education case before the Supreme Court, and later became a Supreme Court Justice himself. These three amazing individuals were Marylanders.

It is fitting that the national Great Blacks in Wax Museum and Justice Learning Center also calls Baltimore home. The museum and learning center is a popular and respected African American history museum. Approximately 300,000 people a year from around the country and the world visit the museum. Many are school children, who can see historical figures come to life in the museum's exhibits. Expansion will allow the museum to teach even more visitors about the important contributions of African Americans.

Private donors have contributed too. Now it is time for the Federal Government to reaffirm its commitment.

Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce the National Great Black Americans Commemoration Act. I am proud to sponsor this legislation along with Senator Cardin. African Americans have a rich history that must be cherished and remembered. This bill will honor African American leaders from across the country by helping to preserve their names, faces, and stories for generations to come.

This legislation will provide continued Federal assistance to expand exhibits and educational programs at the National Great Blacks in Wax Museum and Justice Learning Center in Baltimore, MD. Some of the memorialized figures are household names, like: Frederick Douglass, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and President Barack Obama. Yet many more are unfamiliar, like the 22 African Americans who served in Congress in the 1800s. It is time we give these pioneers the recognition they deserve.

Maryland is proud to be home to so many important figures in African American history. From the dark days of slavery through the civil rights movement, Marylanders have led the way. The brilliant Frederick Douglass was the voice of the voiceless in the struggle against slavery. The courageous Harriet Tubman delivered 300 slaves to freedom on the Underground Railroad. The great Thurgood Marshall, a man who was no stranger to the restriction of educational opportunity, successfully argued the Brown

v. Board of Education case before the Supreme Court, and later became a Supreme Court Justice himself. These three amazing individuals were Marylanders.

It is fitting that the national Great Blacks in Wax Museum and Justice Learning Center also calls Baltimore home. The museum and learning center is a popular and respected African American history museum. Approximately 300,000 people a year from around the country and the world visit the museum. Many are school children, who can see historical figures come to life in the museum's exhibits. Expansion will allow the museum to teach even more visitors about the important contributions of African Americans.

Private donors have contributed too. Now it is time for the Federal Government to reaffirm its commitment.

Mr. President, I am here today to speak on legislation on which we had a cloture vote last night, the Medicare Physician Fairness Act.

I am here to express my disappointment and frustration that we did not vote through a parliamentary procedure so we could debate the issue of what is facing physicians who provide treatment to Medicare patients.

Under the current situation, American doctors will face a 21.5- percent payment reduction in what they get from Medicare when they treat Medicare patients. I think this is outrageous. Right now, we have people who took TARP money and they are acting like twerps.

What they did is take the money. They don't lend the money, but they sure give themselves money with lavish compensation and bonuses. At the same time, every single day, 24/7, there are doctors on the front line saving lives, improving lives, and having people count on them. I am very sorry they chose over a budget debate to vote to take it out on doctors. We have to treat our doctors fairly for what they do and the sacrifices they make to do the job they do.

This is a 21.5-percent payment reduction. Imagine that. Imagine if we had to take a 21-percent pay cut. Do you think we would have not voted for cloture? I don't think so. We are forcing doctors to maybe close their doors to seniors, denying people access to the doctors they need and the doctors they should have. We cannot let this happen.

Every day, we ask the doctors treating our Medicare population to be unstinting in what they do. Then, when it turns around, the government is stingy. I think that is a double standard. We ask the people who provide the hands-on services to be unstinting. Yet when it comes to paying them for what they do, we are pretty stingy. This is unacceptable.

As I said, we ask so much of our doctors. They need to be skilled, smart, empathetic, and they need to be available 24/7. We ask them to have the scientific understanding of a Nobel Prize winner and the patience and compassion of Mother Teresa. Our doctors assume tremendous responsibility for life, the risk and accountability for making the right diagnosis, the right treatment, which is tailored for each unique patient. They follow us all the way through when something happens to us or comes up in our lives.

Our doctors look out for the aging population in our country. When people get older, they have multiple problems, and sometimes the very treatments contradict each other, requiring tremendous scientific skill and collaboration. When they treat older people, they need to take time to tell their story, their narrative. They don't go in just with a list of complaints.

I have heard my Medicare constituents say time and time again: I don't know what I would do without my doctor. Our doctors are always there for us, but are we there for them? Look at what they face.

First of all, in many instances, they are the first responders. They are there dealing with disease, trauma, and even death. For all the work they do while they are trying to work with patients, they have to face a health care bureaucracy--public and private. What is the one thing the public and the private programs have in common? They have a bureaucracy.

Doctors tell me when they came into medicine, it was to make a difference in patients' lives. But what do they run into? Hassle factors, complicated administrative forms, preapprovals, and skimpy and spartan reimbursements, whether it is from private insurance or Medicare.

In this country, we need to start focusing on value care, not volume care. Patients are grateful to their doctors, but Medicare reimbursement is important. All this work and this training is not rewarded for what doctors have to do. They have to work with a whole team of nurses, social workers, pharmacists, and integrative health professionals. One of the things we should do is make sure they are paid fairly. For health professionals--that entire team I talked about--their career is their calling.

Mr. President, I am going to share a personal anecdote on why I feel so strongly about this--not only because I chair the Subcommittee on Aging, and not only because I have tried to be a champion for the older population throughout my public career. In July, I took a fall coming out of church after Mass. I broke my ankle in three places on that Sunday afternoon. I was in absolute shock. As I tried to figure out what I would do, some of the people from church came to my rescue, and I was able to contact my primary care doctor. I had an ambulance there pretty quickly and was taken to a downtown urban hospital--Mercy Hospital. It truly, in every way, exemplifies the quality of mercy that comes like a gentle drop.

On my way there, and what happened to me as I went into the ER--that emergency room was like what we see on TV, only this was no miniseries; this was real life. The doctors at the hospital talked to me, and I spent time working with them as they treated me, got me through what I needed to do. I was met by the ER doctor. I had x-rays; there was a radiologist there. There was my primary care doctor on the phone. There was a gifted and talented orthopedic surgeon, who left his family at a cookout because the call of duty came, and he raced to be there. Was it for Senator Barb? No. The people in the ER were doing the same thing for everybody.

As I waited a few days for the swelling to go down, I had surgery which involved the anesthesiologist. I could go on and on.

When I look at all of the doctors who cared for me that day and in subsequent weeks--the ER doctor, the radiologist, the anesthesiologist, the orthopedic surgeon, my primary care doctor, and the cardiologist-- they were wonderful people at my side. They were people who graduated from college, who then had gone to medical school, at considerable stress and cost. They had gone through sophisticated residency programs, and some even fellowships. They also participate in ongoing continuing medical education requirements. But they do it not because it is required but because they want to be tops in their field.

For all of that work and the responsibility they assume, we have to be able to reimburse them. Mr. President, I have seen the health care system from the wheelchair up. I have seen people who provide the health care, and I have been in rooms getting physical therapy with others who also need care. One of the things they are absolutely clear

about is we need to look out for the people who take care of us as they look out for us.

Today I am asking that we recognize the doctors for all that we ask of them--the knowledge they need, the risk they undertake, the high cost of their education, spending 12 years in training, being on call 24/7, often being rushed from their families when they want to spend time with them. I ask that we recognize those doctors by compensating them justly and fairly and not treating them like a commodity. We also need to do that for the nurses, social workers, physical and occupational therapists, integrative health people, and many others.

If we don't pass this Medicare Physician Fairness Act, we have real problems. Failing to pass this bill is not an option. I think we need to do the right thing by the doctors, and I think we need to do the right thing by the people who need the doctors.

Let's do the right thing and pass the Medicare Physician Fairness Act.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 7 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. President, I want to talk today about the Ryan White authorization. The Ryan White authorization passed last night by, really, unanimous approval. As many people know, the Ryan White legislation is one of the most important pieces of legislation to fund help for those people living with HIV and AIDS.

I want to comment on the importance of the bill, but essentially, in today's world, remind people of where we were and how far we have come. I want to talk about the importance of the bill. I could cite statistics from my own State. I have a State with one of the largest numbers of surviving AIDS patients, for which we are so happy and grateful. I have over 34,000 Marylanders living today with HIV and

Mr. President, first, we acknowledge the need for the Commerce Department to clean up its act in terms of its spending. The Senator from Oklahoma has indeed identified the very programs that give me heartburn as well: the NOAA satellite program, which continually has cost overruns; the decennial census, until we intervened with Secretary Gutierrez, had become a techno boondoggle; the backlog at the Patent and Trademark Office is well known.

However, he proposes to increase funds for the IG, even though the bill already meets the request for this office. This amendment is unnecessary because we provide $27 million for the Commerce inspector general. This matches what President Obama said he wanted to put in the Federal budget, and he thought it would do the job. In fiscal year 2009, the IG of Commerce received 25.8. So we puffed it up 1.2 million already. In addition to the stimulus package, just to be sure that money was going in the right direction, we in the subcommittee, working on a bipartisan basis with Senator Shelby, put in an additional $6 million to make sure we did have oversight and accountability. We have not received any indication from the IG that that IG needs more money. Unnecessary funding will not make those problems go away. What we want to do is be able to push them, advocate them, and stand sentry.

The building restoration which this amendment proposes to do will only add to the Commerce Department's problems. It is called the Herbert C. Hoover Building. The building is in substandard condition. It really is in substandard condition. It is the only building over there that has not been upgraded in several years. Funding in this bill would begin to modernize it, particularly in much needed health and safety codes--heating, air conditioning, electricity, and plumbing. Funding in this covers the long partnership with GSA. I want the Senator from Oklahoma to know I agree that we have to stand sentry on Commerce. If you go over the bill, I have added some tough provisions with Senator Shelby on oversight--particularly on this NOAA satellite program. But taking from much needed repairs at Commerce to fund the much needed repairs in oversight I don't think cuts it. I will oppose the amendment of the Senator from Oklahoma, though I think he and I are on the same broadband about necessary stewardship.

I want to make a comment about the status of the Commerce Department building. I will be very clear that the subcommittee, on a bipartisan basis, supports vigorous oversight. The Commerce Building has not been renovated in more than 20 years.

Let me quote to you from the Washington Post in an article called ``NOAA's Ark.'' It says:

When the Marine ecologist Jane Lubchenko was finally

confirmed in March as the Under Secretary of Commerce in

charge of NOAA, she went to check into her new digs on the

fifth floor at the Commerce Department. It was a fine corner

on 15th and Constitution, nothing fancy, but it overlooked

the Washington Monument. But when she opened the door and she

went to powder her nose, she found a massive Norwegian rat.

The critter had come in through the derelict plumbing that

was in her office. Now, she, with her typical good humor,

laughed it off and said, as an ecologist, she found it

biologically fascinating that sewer rats were able to come

into the Commerce Department.

We told her she couldn't have a grant to study it, but we wanted to do something about the renovation. That is what we are--we want the best and the brightest to work in our government agencies, and to come up with new ideas such as in NOAA, to save the planet, to do the necessary scientific research to save fisheries. In that case, it would have influenced the economy of my State tremendously. We cannot minimize the need to refurbish that building. Air pockets have been developing in the plumbing at the Department of Commerce, and in order to get rid of the rats, you have to have regular flushes. This is not a laughing matter. It sounds like a laughing matter, but I want to be able to go forward to modernize the Commerce Department, working with the Secretary, and continue our vigorous oversight. Let's modernize the building. I hope we can defeat that amendment.

There is an amendment that the Senator from Oklahoma has offered that requires more transparency in our reports to Congress. I think that is a good idea. Again, discussing this with my colleague, Senator Shelby, we both think it is a good idea. If the Senator from Oklahoma will concur--because I am for transparency and I believe we cannot have enough of it so that the American people can see things and make up their own minds--in the interest of time, I would accept the amendment. If the Senator would be willing to do a voice vote, I would be more than willing to accommodate that. I think the amendment is excellent and I believe it improves the bill. I am happy to accept it, or have it voice voted, or have a recorded vote, whatever the Senator wants.

Mr. President, for a point of clarification, the time of the Senator from Oklahoma has expired and how much time do I have?

Mr. President, I would like to speak on these amendments for as much time as I may consume, and then if there is some remaining time, perhaps we could, in the interest of comity, share some time. As I understand it, there is a vote scheduled at 5:30.

Mr. President, before the Senator leaves, I wish to give him two punch lines. First of all, I know he doesn't think much of political science. He made that clear. But I wish to bring to his attention that Dr. Elinor Ostrom, who just won the Nobel Prize for Economics, is a political scientist. She received most of her funding through the National Science Foundation--28 grant awards since 1974. Those grants helped her lay the groundwork for winning the Nobel Prize. She is a political scientist, but she used that talent to win the prize. I will elaborate on that. I am a big fan of her work.

The other point I wish to bring to the Senator's attention is that the National Science Foundation has an $8 million agreement with DOD in their Social Science Department on the social science dimensions of national security, conflicts, and cooperation. DOD, under its Minerva initiative, has joined with the National Science Foundation because they want academic researchers involved in studying authoritarian regimes, the strategic impact of religious and cultural change, terrorist organizations, and other new dimensions in social security. I will describe those grants in detail.

In a minute. What I wish to make clear is that the National Science Foundation has helped fund the work that laid the groundwork for a talented person to win not only the Nobel Prize but to come up with the kind of ideas where maybe we could win markets and jobs. The Department of Defense thought enough of the National Science Foundation's Social Science Department to come up with an $8 million-- and it is not a lot of money--but an $8 million agreement to fund 17 projects, where they are going to be studying things such as authoritarian regimes, terrorist organizations, the impact on religious and cultural change, and how maybe they could avoid us being blown up. If one of those studies helps one policymaker make one decision to save one marine, I think it is worth the 8 million bucks, and I am willing to put it in the Federal budget.

I will be happy to yield for a question.

Will the Senator from Oklahoma agree that political science is one of the branches of social science?

Within these DOD grants, I am not sure which ones are sociology, anthropology or political science because it is in that one directorate.

Mr. President, I oppose, as you can see, the amendment of the Senator from Oklahoma. He wants to eliminate $9 million from the political science program at the National Science Foundation. I don't like targeting an individual science area. Today it might be political science. Another Senator might target biology. Remember how we stifled science under the gag rules and gag guidelines of stem cell research?

Also, I don't like trivializing academic research and academics, that somehow or another there is worthwhile science and then there are others that can be minimized or trivialized.

First, I remind everyone about the work of the National Science Foundation. The NSF has received bipartisan support, and in rising above the gathering storm, the National Academy of Sciences pointed out that the National Science Foundation is one of our lead agencies in promoting innovation through its research and its education programs.

This bill also supports the funding for the Directorate for Social, Behavior and Economic Science. That is the one, which I talked about with the Senator from Oklahoma, which oversees the political science office. This directorate's mission is to use basic research to understand human and institutional behavior vital to rebuilding our national infrastructure and understanding how we operate as a society.

This program began in 1962, and over the years, it has also included an open,

transparent relationship with the Department of Defense. This is not black-box research. This is out-of-the-box research so maybe we could figure out our world better and deal with conflict resolution or when we are in a conflict, how we can work with other people around the world and build democratic societies and democratic institutions.

In recent news, we also were awakened with great pride that two American women won the Nobel Prize. One is Dr. Greider, in my home State of Maryland at Johns Hopkins. I talked with Dr. Greider the other day. Wow, what a great American scientist. She answered her own phone. She was going to join her daughter at a soccer game right after she had gotten the call from Stockholm. As we talked about her groundbreaking research in microbiology, she said she was able to do her work because of the grants she had received through the National Institutes of Health. They had helped her get her education, and they had helped her do her research. They helped her to win the Nobel Prize. But for herself, she thought the prize would be a tribute to what her work was in microbiology that could lead to saving lives.

We also had another woman win the Nobel Prize--Dr. Elinor Ostrom. Her training is in political science. She won the Nobel Prize for economics. She is the first woman ever to win the prize for economics-- an American woman. Although not in the Congress, she has received several political science grants from NSF because political science also looks at institutions which also have an impact on our economy. Since 1974, Dr. Ostrom has received over 20 grants, and these grants helped her do her fieldwork all over the world in relationship to the economic activity of people and communities. The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences thought enough of her work to award her the Nobel Prize. But long before they heard of her in Stockholm, the National Science Foundation had heard of her and helped her with her award-winning research.

We have to keep this going. Our National Science Foundation and our other scientific institutions must go where no thought has gone before. That is the point of discovery. Discovery has led to innovation. Innovation leads to the new ideas that lead to the new jobs in our society. A society that doesn't innovate stagnates. And innovation comes not only in engineering, though much needed; it doesn't only come in physics, though much desired; it doesn't come only in medicine, in the biological research, though much revered; a lot of this is the basic social sciences.

As I said to the Senator from Oklahoma, for the last 8 years there has been a relationship between DOD and the National Science Foundation--again, in open, transparent research. And here, I am quoting from the ``Federal Technology Watch,'' October 6, 2009. ``Federal Technology Watch'' is a weekly report on Federal technology, science, and policy areas.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the article from which I am going to quote.

The quote is as follows:

$8 million has been awarded to 17 projects by the NSF under

a joint NSF/Department of Defense solicitation. The

competition, Social and Behavioral Dimensions of National

Security, Conflict and Cooperation, is focused on basic

social and behavioral science of strategic importance to US

national security policy.

So again, the competition is in the social science directorate. And the four topic areas the DOD thought it was important to contract out, through the

NSF, are in the following areas, according to this article:

Authoritarian regimes, the strategic impact of religious

and cultural change, terrorist organizations and idealogies,

and new dimensions in national security.

They awarded these 17 grants, and let me read what some of them are. One is experimental analysis of alternative models of conflict bargaining. Now, you might say: Ho-hum. But you know what, maybe some idea out of that will help us crack how we can bring peace to the Middle East. Another is mapping terrorist organizations. Well, that is a pretty good idea. Maybe some of that research will help us get out of Afghanistan. How about predicting the nature of conflict? Well, we kind of know what that is, but do we really? Because if we understand the nature of conflict, maybe we can learn to defang conflict.

Let's look at another issue which I am very concerned about because of my worry about the planet--avoiding water wars: environmental security. These may be new threats to the United States.

I could read every one of these, but what I want to say is that DOD has partnered with NSF--to quote from this article--``to reach the broadest range of academic, social and behavioral science, and this collaboration combines the insights of DOD with the peer review expertise of NSF in support of the agencies' desire to promote basic social and behavioral research in areas that will benefit the United States.''

``Federal Technology Watch'' said it best. To take out $9 million is really penny-wise and pound-foolish. I am going to oppose the amendment of the Senator on that issue. I will oppose the amendment of the Senator on taking money from much-needed Commerce Department renovations and putting it in IG because we do fund the President's request in IG.

I do, however, like the amendment of the Senator from Oklahoma on more transparency in government reports that are coming into the Commerce Department. I believe we could have passed that one by voice vote. I am sorry we have to go through the mechanics of a recorded vote. He is worried I would drop it in conference, but I could give him my word that we would maintain that amendment as best we could. But so be it, the Senator is entitled to that.

So, Mr. President, as we conclude our conversation this afternoon, I want to be very clear. We oppose two of the Coburn amendments. I accept one that you will see down at the desk where I stand.

I had hoped we could avoid a cloture vote. Senator Shelby and I have worked hard on a bipartisan bill, and I once again acknowledge the Senator from Alabama, my Republican colleague. We have an excellent bill that funds not only the Commerce Department but the Justice Department, and now we are facing the threat of a filibuster by amendment after amendment. I had hoped we could have reached some kind of agreement on a limited number of amendments, but since we can't, it looks as if we are going to have to go to cloture.

I think we have had a good discussion, and I want to reiterate the three goals of the Commerce, Justice, Science Subcommittee. No. 1, we want to promote the security of the American people. We want to do it over there and we want to do it here. That is why we fund the Justice Department. We also want to promote innovation, and we have vigorous funding for our science agencies and innovation from the government that will also be on the side of those innovators. No. 3, where we do agree with the Senator from Oklahoma is on increased oversight, accountability, stewardship, and transparency.

Mr. President, I know we are about 5 minutes from the vote, so I will now reserve the remainder of my time.

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

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