Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for the Senate amendment to H.R. 3288 and to thank my colleagues on the Commerce,

Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee for their fine work on this bill. I congratulate the senior Senator from Maryland, Ms. Mikulski, and the ranking member, Mr. Shelby, for crafting legislation that positively impacts the course of technology- based innovation, U.S. competitiveness, and scientific advances while protecting Americans from terrorism and violent crime.

In my home State of Maryland, we are fortunate to have many Maryland facilities that have crucial roles in the development and advancement of science and technology. The Senate amendment provides $878.8 million for the National Institute of Standards and Technology, or NIST. NIST operates a 234-acre headquarter facility in Gaithersburg, MD, where more than 2,500 scientists, engineers, technicians, and support personnel are employed. NIST assists industry in developing technology to improve product quality, helps modernize manufacturing processes, ensure product reliability, and facilitate rapid commercialization of products based on scientific discoveries.

Maryland is also fortunate to be home to several National Oceanic and Atmospheric, or NOAA, facilities. The Senate amendment provides $4.77 billion for NOAA. NOAA provides scientific, technical, and management expertise to promote safe and efficient marine and air navigation; assess the health of coastal and marine resources; monitor and predict the coastal, ocean, and global environments--including weather forecasting--and protect and manage the Nation's coastal resources. NOAA's significance is strongly felt in Maryland which, with the Chesapeake Bay, boasts 4,000 miles of coastal land. The bill funds several environmental projects important to Maryland including the Chesapeake Bay Interpretive Buoy System and NOAA's Chesapeake Bay Oyster Restoration, and the Chesapeake Bay Environmental Center to name a few.

As we are all acutely aware, the decennial Census will soon be upon us. This legislation provides $7.32 billion for the Census Bureau. The challenges of the 2010 Census will be unlike any previously experienced. Hot button issues such as immigration and healthcare have cultivated mistrust of the government and will impede public cooperation on the Census. Responses to economic conditions such as families whose home have been foreclosed living in recreational vehicles or multiple families ``doubling up'' into single family homes present even more challenges. However, these challenges simply underscore the importance of the Census and the necessity of making sure every person counts. The Census count will determine federal financial formula allocations. Not in the past seven decades has the Census been so significant, economically speaking. And for those who question whether their voices are heard on Capitol Hill; the Census ensures that they do through the process of reapportionment. It is imperative that the 2010 Census count be accurate. I thank the appropriators for their attention to this important matter on behalf of the nearly 4,300 employees of the U.S. Census Bureau Headquarters in Suitland, MD.

The committee has provided $27.39 billion for the Department of Justice. This will fund important grant programs like the Byrne justice assistance grants for local law enforcement, and Community Oriented Policing Service or COPS grants, and other crime abatement activities. The bill combats crime in Maryland by providing funding for programs such as the Annapolis Capital City Safe Streets Program and the Maryland Department of Juvenile Services Violence Prevention Initiative. This bill supports our law enforcement officers who protect and serve Americans each day by giving them the resources needed to combat and deter violent crimes. In Maryland, this includes the State Police First Responder Radio Interoperability Project. The State of Maryland has committed to developing a Radio interoperability Project that will link State and local law enforcement agencies for coordinated, comprehensive protective services.

I commend Senator Mikulski for boosting funding for the Legal Services Corporation, LSC, in this bill, and for removing the restrictions on the use of non-LSC funds by LSC grant recipients. Lifting this restriction in the law is important, because it allows LSC grantees to use their own funds to pursue class action lawsuits and attorneys fees. These are critical tools for lawyers to have in their arsenal as they fight to protect their low-income clients against egregious miscarriages of justice, and help the most vulnerable individuals in our society secure equal justice under the law. I chaired a hearing in May 2008 in the Judiciary Committee on ``Closing the Justice Gap.'' This bill is consistent with many of our witnesses' recommendations at the hearing, and also with the underlying reauthorization legislation--the Civil Access to Justice Act--filed by Senators Kennedy, Harkin, and me in March 2009. I am also pleased that the House has introduced legislation to reauthorize LSC, and look forward to working with the Obama administration and my colleagues in Congress to enact both the LSC appropriations and reauthorization legislation in this Congress.

In closing, again let me say how much I appreciate the work of Senator Mikulski, Senator Shelby, and their staffs along with the rest of the subcommittee. In addition to providing for critical law enforcement needs, they have crafted a bill that spurs American interests in science and technology forward; making way for American innovation in the global economy. I find that quite impressive and I support this bill.

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

Mr. President, I was proud to cast my vote today in the Environment and Public Works Committee for S. 1733, the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act. At this critical juncture in our Nation's history, we face an economic crisis, an energy security crisis, and a global climate crisis. The good news is that the solutions to these problems are intertwined with one another. This bill will help us meet these challenges and emerge stronger than we are today. We have an urgent responsibility to move forward and I want to thank the chairman of our committee, Senator Barbara Boxer, for her leadership and courage in taking action on this bill today.

If we do not act on this bill which invests in clean, domestic energy, we will be stuck with an energy policy that is undermining our national security and our economy.

If we do not act on this bill which invests in the industries of tomorrow, we will continue to lose clean energy jobs, jobs that stem from American inventions and ideas, to countries overseas.

If we do not act on this bill which provides significant investment in clean fuels and public transit, we will lose an opportunity to change the way we move people and goods around this country. Right now, the transportation sector represents 30 percent of our greenhouse gas emissions and 70 percent of our oil use. If we could double the number of transit riders in the United States, we would reduce our dependence on foreign oil by more than 40 percent, nearly the amount of we import from Saudi Arabia each year.

If we do not act on this bill, we face irreversible, catastrophic climate change. Our children and grandchildren--my two grandchildren-- face a world where there is not enough clean water, food, or fuel, a world that is less diverse, less beautiful, less secure.

I am glad that the majority members of the Environment and Public Works Committee convened today in order to act. And we needed to act on this bill today because this is a global problem and we want all countries to act. In just a few weeks, the international community will meet in Copenhagen to work on an international agreement to do just that.

I am hopeful that Copenhagen will produce an agreement on the architecture of a final climate regime in which countries make a commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. I hope we have an agreement that spells out the mechanism for reaching and enforcing those targets as well as outlining the financing for the developing world.

In my role as chairman of the Commission for Security and Cooperation in Europe and as a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, I speak often to our colleagues in Europe and around the world. And what other countries want to know before they take additional steps--or take first steps--on climate change is: Where is the United States? They are impressed with the action the Obama administration has taken. They are happy to see that the House has acted.

But for the countries of the world to commit to reduce greenhouse gasses in Copenhagen in just a few weeks, they want to see that both Houses of Congress are serious. They want to know that the Senate is making progress toward producing comprehensive climate legislation. The vote today in the Environment and Public Works Committee demonstrates that progress.

But this bill is good for this country and good for Maryland even if we don't get an international agreement. Marylanders understand the opportunities this bill promises. With this bill, we can invest in clean energy jobs: like those at Algenol in Baltimore where they are national leaders in making fuel from algae; like those at Volvo-Mack Truck in Hagerstown where they are making hybrid trucks; like those at Chesapeake Geosystems, a Maryland company that is an east coast leader in geothermal heating; and like those at DAP that makes spackling that is used in weatherizing homes and businesses.

With this bill, we can invest in the transportation improvements Marylanders so desperately need. Transit ridership in Maryland increased by 15 percent in 2008. But recent train and bus accidents in the DC Metro area demonstrate that we need new investment in transit. Our transit systems will not be a safe and reliable solution to our pollution and energy security problems without it.

Marylanders also know the costs of inaction. The people of Smith Island are watching their island disappear under rising sea levels. The crabs, fish, and other aquatic life Maryland's watermen rely on are disappearing along with their way of life. And it is only going to get worse. Maryland's sea levels are projected to rise 3.5 feet. That means thousands of Marylanders are going to lose their homes and farms. This bill provides critical assistance to States, especially coastal States such as Maryland, to help address these challenges and protect our treasured resources such as the Chesapeake Bay.

The vote that we took today in the Environment and Public Works Committee is just the beginning of putting America back in control of its energy future. And we must remember that even after Copenhagen, any deals we reach, any papers we sign, are still but the foundation. The work must continue with earnest followthrough, dedication to truly changing the way we work and live and move around this Earth. That is work for each of us, and we took one important step forward today.

Mr. President, I rise today to pay special tribute to an outstanding community leader, the Reverend John (Jack) Sharp of Baltimore, MD. Reverend Sharp served as pastor of the Govans Presbyterian Church for 27 years. He has distinguished himself by reaching far beyond his parish to the entire Baltimore community as a visionary and activist determined to move people and social programs from inaction to accomplishment.

Reverend Sharp's mission had always been to aid the poor and the most vulnerable citizens. His boldness of purpose and tenacity, coupled with a winning and commanding personality, enabled him to unite diverse people to work for a common good. Few community activists can match his accomplishments. During his career, he encouraged neighborhoods to accept and embrace housing for the mentally ill and the homeless. In 1991, he founded the Govans Ecumenical Development Corporation, GEDCO, and he has become one of Baltimore's most dynamic and expansive nonprofit developers of senior housing and supportive services for those with special needs.

GEDCO projects and facilities are numerous, providing housing and services for the mentally ill and the homeless--including men and women with HIV/AIDS--a large community pantry, financial assistance, and job development and mentoring. Jack Sharp is most proud of the development of his grand vision, Stadium Place, a state-of-the-art senior residential campus on the grounds of the old Memorial Stadium. The campus is home to four independent living buildings for retirees, an intergenerational and interfaith community ``Y'' and playground, and shovel-ready plans for an innovative Green House long-term care residential facility.

Reverend Sharp accomplished all of this while serving as a pastor; president of the Board of Community Housing Associates of the Baltimore Mental Health Systems, Inc; president of the Glen Meadows Retirement community; and treasurer of the Baltimore Interfaith Hospitality Network. In 2008, he was honored with the Governor's Leadership in Aging Award and the National Football League--Ravens--Community Quarterback Award for Community Service.

I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing and applauding Jack Sharp for all that he has accomplished to improve the lives of citizens in Baltimore. He made their challenges his challenge and he has made Baltimore City a better place in which to live.

Mr. President, today I would like to draw attention to a dangerous situation that has implications for the national security of the U.S. and our allies, a situation involving dire humanitarian circumstances, with over 150,000 displaced persons since 2004. I am speaking about the situation in Yemen.

Senator Lugar and I are introducing a resolution supporting peace, security, and the innocent civilians affected by conflict in Yemen. This resolution calls on the President and international community to use all appropriate measures to prevent Yemen from becoming a failed state.

The gravity of the challenges Yemen faces should not be ignored. To document a few of these challenges: Yemen is home to a substantial number of al-Qaeda militants, a rebellion in the northern part of the country, unrest in southern regions, and piracy in the Gulf of Aden. Yemen has limited and rapidly depleting natural resources including oil, which accounts for over 75 percent of government revenue, and water. Yemen is underdeveloped, ranking 140th out of 182 countries in the United Nations Development Program's 2009 Human Development Index. Thousands of Yemenis are currently displaced as a result of the ongoing conflict between the Government of Yemen and al-Houthi rebel forces. Regions of Yemen have a large degree of lawlessness; religious minorities--particularly the Jewish population--have emigrated due to safety concerns; and human rights violations persist.

The U.S., the international community, and the people of Yemen must do all that we can to prevent Yemen from becoming a failed state. Disrupting, dismantling, and defeating al-Qaeda and violent extremism requires a global strategy that includes preventing Yemen from serving as a base for terrorist operations conducted elsewhere. Americans and our allies are all too familiar with the dangers of terrorists operating unimpeded. The March 18 and September 17, 2008, attacks on the U.S. Embassy in Sana'a and the October 12, 2000 attack on the U.S.S. Cole remind us of this threat specifically in Yemen.

Aside from Yemen's impact on the national security of America and our allies, we cannot ignore the tremendous hardships many in Yemen currently endure. Yemenis deserve to have basic security, basic human rights, and their basic needs met. We need to stand with those who want to live in peace and achieve improved living conditions. I am especially concerned with the plight of those displaced by conflict in Yemen, and I applaud efforts taken by the Obama administration and United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to assist these displaced persons. I urge the Government of Yemen and rebel forces to halt hostilities, allow medical and humanitarian aid to reach civilians displaced by conflict, and create an environment that will enable a return to normal life for internally displaced persons in Yemen.

I would like to thank the senior Senator from Indiana, who is the Ranking Member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, for cosponsoring this resolution on this important issue.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, shortly, we are going to be voting on the unemployment compensation bill. I have already taken to the floor to urge my colleagues to pass the underlying bill, which provides 14 weeks of additional benefits to those who will exhaust their unemployment compensation. This is an insurance program. The funds are there, assessed through the compensation system of our country in order that we have money available for those who have lost their jobs during a recession, and that is exactly what has happened.

These are extraordinary times. I know the Presiding Officer will agree with me that we have been to our States, and we know there are people who are unable to find jobs. This past week, I was at the employment office in Baltimore and saw people coming into that office in large numbers and asking for jobs. I talked to individuals, saw the faces of people who want to work but who can't find jobs. So it is critically important for the system to work, and that means we need to provide the safety net of unemployment compensation during these times, and we need to extend it to all States.

The bill before us will provide those additional 14 weeks in every State. In my own State of Maryland, we have many counties that have unemployment rates far in excess of the 8\1/2\ percent, which was the trigger number used in the House bill. So it is appropriate we pass this bill for the people who will benefit by it, and it is also appropriate we pass it to help our economy. We know the dollars that are provided through unemployment compensation work their way back into our economy, very quickly helping our economy.

I wish to talk also about the leader's amendment that will extend to first-time home buyers a tax credit that would expire at the end of this month. I had introduced legislation, along with Senator Isakson, to extend the credit for an additional 6 months, and I am pleased that provision is included in the leader's amendment that also expands the credit for an additional 6 months.

According to the IRS, 1.4 million people used the credit as of September 2009. As many as 40 percent of all home buyers this year will qualify for the credit. It has clearly worked according to its intended purpose; that is, to get potential home buyers off the sidelines and into the market and buying a home. It is estimated that the credit is directly responsible for 200,000 to 400,000 purchases this year. According to the National Association of Realtors, those additional sales have pumped approximately $22 billion into the economy. It is getting our economy back on line.

The credit has succeeded in reducing the glut of homes for sale, but it needs to be extended. We still have too much inventory that is out there, and it is affecting new home starts, which are critically important for our economy. We know the real estate market was the spark that put us into this recession. We know that. We know what happened to home values. We know what happened to people who were unable to sell their homes. We know what happened with foreclosures. We know we need a healthy real estate market to get us out of this recession.

We have seen some signs of improvement and stabilization in the market, but we are certainly not out of the woods yet. Inventories are still way too high. Dean Baker, codirector for the Center for Economic and Policy Research, notes that price declines could resume later this fall.

Quoting Mr. Baker:

The uptick in sales driven by the credit has led to a

substantial increase in the number of homes offered for sale

at just the time that the boost from the credit is dwindling.

The inventory will also be a much larger drag in the slow-

selling winter months.

We know winter is notoriously a slow season, but we have too much inventory that is out there. This would be the wrong time for Congress to allow this credit to expire.

Other economists, such as Mark Zandi of Moody's, and James Glassman of JPMorgan Chase, support extending the credit.

The substitute amendment, which I have cosponsored and which is similar to the bill I introduced--S. 1678--extends and expands the credit to April 30, 2010, for binding contracts and then allows 60 more days to close. I think that makes sense. The closing period sometimes hampers the use of the credit. For example, if someone was to enter into a contract today, even though the credit is there, it is highly unlikely they could settle by the end of the month, taking advantage of the $8,000 credit. It makes sense to say that as long as you have a binding contract by April, you have 2 months later to close in order to get the credit.

The amendment keeps the $8,000 credit for the first-time home buyer and then provides a $6,500 credit available to other home buyers who have lived in their current homes for at least 5 years. These are the step-up sales. These are people who currently own homes, who have lived in their home for 5 years, and are now trying to buy another home. You can't buy a house and try to flip it to take advantage of the $6,500 credit. It is a smaller credit than the first-time home buyers', but it is still a significant credit and it is available for homes costing up to $800,000.

I don't think there are many homes in the area that will qualify under the income limits, but it does allow those to qualify. The income limits have been lifted slightly from $75,000 to $125,000 for an individual and from $150,000 to $225,000 for joint filers.

So it takes care of where the market needs help, where there is too much inventory, and will allow the credit to, again, tell people: Look, the economy needs your help. This is a good time to buy. The government is going to be your partner with this $8,000 credit for the first-time home buyer and a $6,500 credit for the person who has lived in their house for 5 years.

There are a couple more points that I think need to be underscored. The credit is fully paid for. It will not add to the deficit. That is an important point, but I would also point out that this credit will help stimulate our economy, which will generate economic activity, which will help us on our budget deficit. It really does help our economy, and it is fully paid for, so it doesn't add to the deficit, and that is one of the points I mentioned when I first introduced this bill with Senator Isakson--we were going to look for a way to make sure it is paid for.

I thank the chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Baucus, for coming forward with an amendment that is fully paid for, that is offset. I believe that is the way it should be.

The second point I want to bring up is it includes tough antifraud language and ``math error'' authority for the IRS to ensure that only those individuals and families who qualify for the credit take advantage of it. I know we are all concerned about reports we read in the paper about potential fraud on this credit. Any fraud is wrong, but we know if we set up a new credit there are those who will press the point more than they should. We have to make sure the antifraud provisions are in this bill so those entitled to this credit are those who take advantage of it and it is not used inappropriately. Language is included in this amendment to

make sure that, in fact, happens. It is a bill that is properly balanced.

I wish to make one other point. I heard the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee said this, and I agree completely. Senator Isakson and I talked about this. The credit will end. This is not an extension because we believe this is a credit that should be there indefinitely. We do not. This credit is to help bring real estate back to where it needs to be for our economy to recover. We give until April so that people can take advantage of this credit during this tough economic time, knowing full well that the winter is going to be a slow season, normally, for home sales and in the spring people are more likely to start again looking at home sales. We want people to take advantage of this now, recognizing that come April this credit will not be extended. This is the time to take advantage of this government credit that helps you in buying a home.

As I said earlier, the slump in housing led us into this recession. A rebound in the market will lead us out of this recession. Extending the credit is a prudent and fiscally responsible measure.

I am proud to be a cosponsor of the leader's amendment, and I hope we will shortly have an opportunity not only to pass this amendment but to pass the underlying bill that will extend unemployment compensation to literally, in my State, the tens of thousands of people who otherwise will lose their benefits by the end of this month and the 1.4 million Americans who will lose their unemployment compensation benefits by the end of this year if we do not act.

For all those reasons, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I take this time--and will share it with the Senator from Minnesota, Ms. Klobuchar, and the Senator from Delaware, Mr. Kaufman--to talk a little bit about health care reform, health insurance reform, and the need for us to act.

Quite frankly, on behalf of middle-income families of America, the very worst option we could do is allow the status quo to continue.

During this time, I am going to be quoting from some letters I received from Maryland families who are hurting today. These are families, some of whom have health insurance but they cannot afford it or they are not certain they are going to have adequate coverage to deal with the needs of their families. They are looking to us to help them deal with the problem of health insurance today.

The first problem, quite frankly, is the fact that it is too expensive. Health insurance in America is too expensive for so many families. As the Senator from Minnesota knows, I use the numbers 6, 12, 23 frequently: $6,000 is what it cost a family in Maryland 10 years ago for a family health insurance policy. Maybe their employer paid part of it. Maybe they paid part of it. Then, it was $6,000 for adequate coverage. Today, that number is $12,000 a family. Many families in Maryland have a hard time affording $12,000 of their compensation going to pay for their health insurance. By 2016, it is going to be $23,000 for a family, if we don't do anything about health insurance reform.

Today, of that money families are spending, $1,100 represents what insured families are paying for people who don't have health insurance. I am frequently asked: What about these 46 million or 47 million Americans who have no health insurance, shouldn't they take care of themselves? I say: Yes, we should have personal responsibility, but today those who have insurance are paying extra costs for those who don't have insurance.

One of the most important points of health insurance reform is to make sure everybody pays their fair load to reduce the cost of those who currently have health insurance.

(Mr. TESTER assumed the chair.)

Yes.

I thank my colleague for the question. The Senator is right. People who have no health insurance do what they can do. They use the emergency room as their doctor. They use the emergency room when they should not be using it. It is very expensive; it costs a lot of money. By the way, they don't pay their bills. It becomes part of what is known as uncompensated care in our hospitals. What is more serious is, they don't get the preventive health care they need. They get the more intense services than if they had access to our health care system from the beginning. They use the emergency room, as the Senator from Minnesota is referring to, and they don't pay their bills, and that becomes uncompensated care. All of us who pay the hospital bills and pay for our services also pay for what the uninsured are using in the emergency rooms, which adds to the cost of hospital care and adds to the cost of our insurance premiums that we pay for family policies. In Maryland, that amounts to $1,100 a year. That is what you and I are paying for those who don't have health insurance because they are using the health care system and not paying their bills.

Part of health care reform is that everyone should have access to affordable, quality health care and health insurance.

Yes.

The Senator from Delaware is absolutely right. There have been studies done comparing two individuals with the same health care condition, one with insurance and one without insurance. The person who doesn't have insurance uses more health care services than the one who has health insurance, and it is for the reason the Senator said. The person with health insurance will have a much earlier intervention or gets preventive health care, will take blood pressure medicine or cholesterol medicine or will have tests that discover illness at an early stage or prevents an illness; for example, with colon cancer, a polyp can be discovered before it becomes cancerous. A person without insurance doesn't get those services. They enter the system in a much more costly way, which may lead to hospitalization that wouldn't have been necessary if they entered the system at an earlier stage, but they cannot because they have no health insurance. So the Senator is right.

One of the things we do is try to help the families who have health insurance. We can end insurance company abuses. That is a very important point. The health insurance reform package we are looking at will end health insurance company abuses. All the bills reported out of the committees do that. You cannot be denied coverage due to preexisting conditions. There will be no more annual or lifetime caps on benefits. They cannot charge more or drop your coverage if you get sick. It requires them to fully cover preventive care and checkups.

I have received--and my colleagues have, I am sure--letters from people in my State. I wish to tell you how important these health insurance reforms will be in helping middle-income families. I have one example, and I am sure my colleagues can cite others. Here is a letter I received last month from Kevin, who lives in Kensington, Montgomery County.

Kevin is a healthy, nonsmoking, 54-year-old father who was laid off and has recently started his own company. He has two high school-aged children. He recently completed the Marine Corps marathon and has been an avid runner and swimmer all his life. I daresay most of us could not do that.

After Kevin was laid off, all four family members applied for coverage in the individual market. However, Kevin and his two children were denied access to comprehensive coverage because of preexisting conditions. Listen to this. Kevin was denied coverage because the insurance company said he had a history of upper respiratory symptoms. Actually, he has only had two chest colds in the last 6 years. Five years ago, tests showed a very small amount of scar tissue in his lungs, but doctors have concluded this is not a health issue or risk. Yet he was denied coverage because of a preexisting condition. It is important to get health insurance reform passed because insurance companies will not be able to discriminate based on preexisting conditions--that don't even exist, in Kevin's case.

Kevin's daughter's coverage excludes benefits related to any injury to any part of her back. This is because she once had a minor slipped disc, which has not caused her pain in more than 2\1/2\ years. This is a common condition among teenage girls, but the insurance company is refusing to cover back injury. Her doctor has written to the insurance company stating that she ``has no more likelihood of needing medical services than any other patient her age.'' Yet today, Kevin is denied full coverage for his daughter.

It gets even worse. Kevin's son was also refused coverage for his knee because he was diagnosed with growing pains that required no treatment. This means Kevin's son will not be covered for any injury to his knees at any time in the future.

Kevin writes:

We have a healthy, physically active family. No doubt

healthier and in better shape than 98 percent of the families

in this country. And we're told that 3 of the 4 of us are too

great a risk to be fully covered. . . .

We are victims of a health care system that is horribly

broken, and our experience in trying to get health insurance

for our family--a family that has no chronic health

conditions requiring medical treatment--has turned us into

strong supporters of health care reform.

Yes, I am glad to yield.

I think people in this Nation would be shocked to hear about that situation and for someone who is totally healthy being denied full coverage because the insurance company just wants to deny coverage, just wants to pay less claims in the future, so it finds reasons to restrict coverage, even though that person is as healthy as anybody in the general public but is being denied coverage today.

Yes.

If I might mention another family in Maryland, a typical family--Marvin and Lillian, who live in Chevy Chase, who are grandparents. I can relate to that, having two wonderful granddaughters. Marvin is a retired Federal Government employee. Both he and his wife Lillian have Medicare. They are in pretty good shape. However, they are worried about their grandchildren.

They have a grandson who is 14 years old. He has Crohn's disease and dwarfism. He currently has coverage through his parents, but his family is petrified that he will be denied coverage when he is no longer able to receive insurance through his parents. Because of his preexisting conditions, it will be extremely hard for him to find individual coverage while job hunting or adequate coverage while at school. Without reform, high health care costs will preclude him from starting his own business or working for a small business owner.

Marvin writes:

My grandson's future employment prospects will be limited

because he will need an employer with a large group plan to

ensure good coverage. If he gets sick without coverage, or

very limited coverage, it would be a disaster.

It is truly unacceptable that in America today, because of the way our health insurance system operates, that a person's future and what type of job that person can seek is limited because of a preexisting condition. That does not make this Nation as competitive as we need to be. We can certainly do a much better job on that now.

There are two good points here. One is that we eliminate preexisting conditions. That would be taken care of. We also provide coverage through the age of 26 so that you can keep a child on your family plan coverage through the age of 26. I think this is going to be a very popular issue. This is one area that does not cost a lot of money. Children in their early twenties are not at high risk. It is unlikely this will add greatly to the insurance premium cost--in fact, it will not--but it does give greater assurances for those children who are not yet fully in the workplace--so they do not have the opportunity to get an affordable health insurance product--that they can stay on their parents' policy until age 26. That is another way we are going to help families.

Lastly, the other area we want to be sure is done is when people change jobs. We know this is a very mobile workforce; people change jobs much more frequently today than they did 10 years ago. This bill will make sure you always have health insurance, even if you lose or change your job. You are not going to be locked into a company because you don't want to lose your health benefits. I must tell you, I hear that frequently from people in Maryland. I am sure my colleagues hear it in Minnesota and Delaware. People say: I want to change jobs, but I can't because I don't want to lose my health benefits. That should not be a reason someone shouldn't be able to look for other opportunities. When we get health insurance done, people will be able to get insurance regardless of where they work. There will be affordable coverage for all Americans. That will help middle-income families. That is our objective. That is what we are trying to do.

Another area I want to mention briefly is small businesses. We hear frequently that small business owners have a hard time finding affordable insurance. I will give a couple examples of people from Maryland.

Steven from Annapolis is a self-employed small business owner. Steven's health care premiums have increased by unmanageable amounts. Steven is currently paying 55 percent more for

his family health insurance than he was 14 months ago--a 55-percent increase in 14 months. The premiums for Steven and his family, all of whom are healthy, are approaching $10,000 annually. In August, his premiums increased 24 percent, after having increased 25 percent in 2008. He wakes up in cold sweats worried about how he can afford such high costs. Steven sent me his most recent health insurance bill, which showed the 24.1-percent increase.

Steven writes:

We are worrying about these problems 24 hours a day. That

is no exaggeration.

Small business people wake up in a cold sweat, as I have

done many times through the course of this difficult

recession, wondering how we are going to meet our client

deadlines, pay our bills, and be a good father and husband

all at the same time.

For small businesses, if you have one bad experience with health care during the year, you can expect a large premium increase the next year. It is one thing about health insurance being expensive as it is, but if you are a business owner, how can you plan your company budget when you don't know what your health premiums are going to be the next year?

I will be glad to yield to my friend from Minnesota.

I yield to the Senator from Delaware.

Small businesses are clearly the driving force behind job creation in America. The Senator from Delaware is absolutely right. Innovation comes from small business. They are so discriminated against under our current health care system. Middle-income families, in large measure, work for small businesses, and they are absolutely disadvantaged today because of the system.

The status quo is unacceptable. We need to enact insurance reforms under what we have here. Small companies can benefit the same as large companies, with much larger pools, much more affordable plans, more choices.

There are really no options for small businesses today. They do not have a lot of companies willing to write the policies. It is interesting, in my State of Maryland, two insurance companies write 71 percent of the private insurance business. If you are a small business owner, you are either going to be with one of those companies or you are not going to be able to find insurance. They can pretty much dictate.

One more example. Robert, who lives in Baltimore, is a married architect who has health insurance with one of our large insurance companies. His insurance for himself and his wife is $20,000 a year-- $20,000 a year. As a small businessperson--listen to this--not only does he have to pay these high premiums, but if he needs to find a gastroenterologist in order to do a test, there are plenty of gastroenterologists in his neighborhood, but the insurance company will not cover a doctor in that area. He has to travel all the way across town. He says he spends more time finding out who will treat him because he doesn't have a choice of plan. He has to be in this plan. So there is a lot of wasted money in the system he has to go through.

By the way, if you are in a small business, running a small business, you have to spend time on your business. If you don't spend time on your business, you are not going to make it. If you have to spend time to figure out what doctor you can see under the small print in your insurance plan, you are not going to succeed as a businessperson.

There are a lot of good reasons why we need health insurance reform in America. There are a lot of good reasons we need to act, a lot of good reasons middle-income families are depending on us to fix this broken system--it is too expensive, not enough choice. The health insurance reforms coming out of our committees all provide much more choice and option and protection to the people in our communities.

The public insurance option is another choice. There is more competition. It brings down costs. That

is why we support a public option. It is a reliable product you know is going to be there.

If you are living in western Maryland--and there are not a lot of insurance companies there--you know there is a public option, that plan will be there for you. You know it is going to be affordable. You know it is not going to leave town, as some of the private insurance companies did that used to insure Medicare. These plans will be there.

It is also going to act as strong competition for the private insurance companies so they know they have to be competitive. Today, again, it is not competitive. There are not enough companies there.

The private insurance option will offer people, such as Robert whom I mentioned, another option, another choice, an affordable plan. That is what he is looking for. He cannot afford $20,000 a year. He is looking for a premium much more affordable than $20,000 a year, and the public insurance option gives him that choice.

One other thing about the public option that needs to be clarified. There are those who say: This is a government takeover. Is Medicare a government takeover? The answer is no. There has not been one Senator come to this floor to say we should repeal Medicare. Medicare has been a very successful program.

By the way, health insurance reform will strengthen Medicare. Why? Because the way to bring down Medicare costs is to bring down health care costs. What we have been doing year after year is picking on Medicare, saying we are going to control health care costs by reducing Medicare. We cannot do it. You have to bring down health care costs to bring down Medicare costs. And what we do is strengthen the Medicare benefits by giving additional benefits, starting to fill that doughnut hole under the prescription drug plan, offering preventive care to our seniors. So we are strengthening the Medicare Program. The doctors and the hospitals are all private, as they would be under a public option. This is a way of providing more competition, quite frankly, keeping the private insurance companies a little bit more competitive and honest as they do their marketing, to make sure we get value for the dollars we are paying for our health insurance premiums.

Health care costs are growing about three times what wages are growing in America today. That means a government that pays for Medicaid and Medicare will continue to pay a larger amount of the budget for health care unless we can get health care costs under control. It also means American families are going to be paying more of their income for health care unless we get health costs under control.

So how do we get health care costs under control? We do it by prevention and we do it by wellness and by streamlining the bureaucratic system, by using health information technology more effectively and by managing diseases. We do it in a way that brings down health care costs and improves access and quality, and that is what we are doing.

The Senator from Delaware is absolutely right. Our goal is quite simple: bring down the escalating cost of health care, provide access to affordable quality health care for every American family, and do it in a fiscally responsible way.

The Senator from Minnesota, Ms. Klobuchar.

I thank my colleague from Minnesota. She has been a real fighter for middle-income families and working families in America and in Minnesota and has brought out these issues of how we can improve the standard of living.

I think the point the Senator raises is one that needs to be underscored. Today, working families, middle-income families are seeing an erosion of their income. They are seeing more and more of their compensation going to pay for health benefits. If their employers are paying for it, it means less take-home money for them in their paychecks. If they have to pay the cost, they are seeing more and more of an increase. Again, health care costs are going up three times what wages are going up in America. So middle-income families are falling behind every year, and they are depending on us to speak up for them.

They are also paying a hidden tax--a hidden tax. Middle-income families today are spending $1,100 a year paying for those who don't have health insurance. We talked about that earlier. That is a hidden tax. We have to get rid of that tax.

One of the things we do in our health insurance reform is to get rid of that tax by saying that everyone has to be responsible for their own health care costs. Why should I pay for someone who today could have health insurance but chooses not to have health insurance?

It is interesting that one of the ways we can save money from the Medicare system is to get everybody to pay their health care bills. Our seniors are paying higher costs under the Medicare system because people use the system who are not Medicare beneficiaries and don't pay for it. So Medicare, every year, pays a premium to our hospitals called DIS--the disproportionate share--for the uncompensated care in the hospitals. The Medicare system is paying for that. Our seniors could be getting better benefits if everyone paid their own way rather than having our seniors subsidize those who have no health insurance.

So these are ways in which we do help middle-income families in America.

Not only will we be able to help them with the doughnut hole on prescription drugs, we will be able to provide them better health care services with lower copayments and deductibility, and we are providing a stronger system.

Look, I think we all have a common interest. If you are a family that currently has health insurance, if you are a small business owner who is covering your employees, if you are covered under the Medicare system today, you all have an interest in making sure we pass the health insurance reform that is being debated now in the Congress.

For those who have insurance, it will make your coverage more affordable in the future. It will eliminate this hidden tax, and it will enact significant health insurance reforms to protect you against the arbitrary practices of private insurance companies.

If you are a small business owner, it will give you more competition, more reliable premiums without being increased radically on a yearly basis. It

will provide competition so that you can get the same benefits a large company can get with larger pools.

If you are in the Medicare system, it takes some of the cost out of Medicare that you are currently subsidizing for people who are uninsured. It firms up our health care system, which is good for Medicare in the future as far as keeping it safe and sound, and it allows us to expand benefits, such as the prescription drug benefit, and get rid of that doughnut hole.

So we are all in this together. But the only option that we cannot afford to have is the status quo. The letters we have read on the Senate floor from people who are literally being forced out of their current coverage, who are being discriminated against by insurance companies because of preexisting conditions that don't even exist, they are depending upon us to act.

I see the assistant majority leader is here, and I mention that because Senator Durbin has been one of the real leaders in taking on some of the tough interests in our country--taking on the tobacco companies and dealing with tobacco and children, taking on prescription drugs to make sure we have affordable drugs in America. So I thank him for his leadership because I know he has been one of the real leaders on this issue in the Senate.

I know all of us will do everything we can to help middle-income families. We have worked hard to strengthen Medicare over the years, fought the efforts by those who wanted to privatize Medicare, who wanted to weaken Medicare, and we are committed to making sure that these programs are strengthened, are continued, and that is why we are so passionate about the need for us to take up health insurance reform, for us to make sure we protect middle-income families.

I am glad to yield.

A little earlier, I read into the record several letters I received from Marylanders. That was a sampling. I received a lot more. But it just points out--a letter from a Marylander who was denied full coverage, not only for himself but his two children, for preexisting conditions that didn't even exist, frankly--they didn't exist--but the insurance company was in a position where they could write a policy the way they wanted to write it, and this person in Maryland had no choice. There was no other insurance company that person could get. There was no competition there. We need to do something about that. We need to make it clear. I agree with the Senator, if it takes 10 pages or 100 pages or 1,000 pages, we have to make it clear that insurance companies cannot do those types of practices against people in this Nation. They cannot underwrite based upon preexisting conditions.

It seems as though insurance companies want to write insurance policies where no one can make claims. We buy insurance to protect us. Insurance needs to be there. That is one of the reasons we eliminate caps. Insurance should be there to give you the coverage when you need it. If that family needs that medicine to keep that child alive, that is why you have insurance. Insurance should cover that. If it takes 1,000 pages, let's make sure we get it right to protect the people in this Nation.

I thank my colleagues, Senator Klobuchar from Minnesota, Senator Kaufman from Delaware, and Senator Durbin from Illinois, for their comments and for their passion on this issue. This is an issue we have to get right for middle-income families in America. They are the ones hurting. They are the ones who cannot afford this current system. They are the ones falling further and further behind every year. These are the ones--subject to the discriminatory practices of private insurance companies--we have a responsibility to protect. These are the ones paying the hidden tax for people who do not have health insurance, many of whom can afford health insurance but choose not to get it. It is our responsibility to act on behalf of middle-income families in America to make sure we have the health care system that is affordable and is available to every person in this country.

What we are doing is to bring down the cost of health care, to make sure we have affordable care for every person, every American, and do it in a fiscally responsible way. I urge my colleagues to make sure we take advantage of this opportunity. Let's make sure we get health care reform done, and done as soon as possible.

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

Mr. President, this week's visit to Washington by the Ecumenical Patriarch, Bartholomew I, is an appropriate occasion to renew calls for the reopening of the Halki Seminary, without further delay. Founded in 1844, the Theological School of Halki, located outside modern-day Istanbul, served as the principal seminary for Ecumenical Patriarchate until its forcible closure by the Turkish authorities in 1971. Counted among alumni of this preeminent educational institution are numerous prominent Orthodox scholars, theologians, priests, and bishops as well as patriarchs, including Bartholomew I. Many of these scholars and theologians have served as faculty at other institutions serving Orthodox communities around the world. Despite occasional indications by the authorities of pending action to reopen the seminary, to date all have failed to materialize.

Earlier this year, several of my colleagues from the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, which I chair, joined me in a letter to President Obama to underscoring our longstanding concern over the continued closure of this unique institution. The continued denial of requests for the reopening of the seminary stands in clear violation of Turkey's obligations pursuant to the 1989 OSCE Vienna Concluding Document which affirmed the right of religious communities to provide ``training of religious personnel in appropriate institutions.'' While there is no question that the Halki Seminary is the appropriate institution for training Orthodox clergy in Turkey, the Government of Turkey continues to refuse to reopen the school.

In his address to the Turkish Gran National Assembly in April, President Obama said, ``Freedom of religion and expression lead to a strong and vibrant civil society that only strengthens the state, which is why steps like reopening Halki Seminary will send such an important signal inside Turkey and beyond.'' In a welcomed development, Turkey's Prime Minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan met with the Ecumenical Patriarch in August. In an address to a wider gathering of minority religious leaders that day, Erdogan concluded by stating, ``We should not be of those who gather, talk and disperse. A result should come out of this.''

Mr. President, I urge Prime Minister Erdogan to follow through on the sentiment of those remarks by actions that will facilitate the reopening of the Halki Seminary without further delay. I am told that the Theological School of Halki is situated atop the summit of the Hill of Hope. For those of us who have pursued this issue over the years, our hope has been that we would indeed witness the reopening of this historic institution. I remain hopeful and encourage Prime Minister Erdogan to act decisively and without condition on this matter before his upcoming visit to Washington.

Mr. President, soon we will have an historic opportunity to take up the most significant change in our health care system in many decades, a bill that will help Americans deal with their health care needs, that will reform our health care system so we have affordable, quality health care for all Americans. This bill will help middle-income families who currently have health insurance. Because we are going to build on the current system, protect those who have good health care coverage so they are able to keep that coverage in the future, we base it on building on what is right in our health care system and correcting the problems that currently exist.

For a family who has health insurance today, they are paying a large amount of money for those who don't have health insurance. The number of people without health insurance has grown dramatically, to over 46 million Americans. The cost to a family who has health insurance for those who don't have health insurance is $1,100 a year. That is a hidden tax on middle-income families today. Health insurance reform will help correct that inequity to help middle-income families. It will also reform the practices of health insurance companies dealing with preexisting conditions and caps put on the amount of coverage and with making sure that prevention is available without copayments and deductibles. All that will help middle-income families today who have health insurance.

But the critical factor, why this is so important for middle-income families today, is because of the escalating cost of health care. Health care is growing three times greater than wages. That means for the typical family, every year they are falling further and further behind on their standard of living, because more and more of their income needs to be devoted toward health care costs. Whether your employee pays it or you pay it or a combination of both, it comes out of your compensation package. For many families, they are actually receiving less income every year because so much more is devoted toward health care costs.

In Maryland, 10 years ago the cost for a family was about $6,000 for health insurance. Today that is $12,000. By the year 2017, it is projected to be $23,000. We are spending in America today $7,400 per person for health care, $2.4 trillion. Health reform will help middle- income families because we are going to bring down the cost of health care.

First, we invest in wellness. We know that if people take care of their own health care needs, if they deal with their diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, with keeping themselves healthy through exercise, if they don't smoke, all of that will bring down the cost of health care. The health care reform that we will be taking up invests in wellness programs, gives incentives for wellness programs to bring down the cost. What we also do is invest in health information technology. The amount of money we waste every year because of the administrative inefficiencies of the system is staggering. Also we have unnecessary tests that are given in the emergency room because they don't have medical records. We have the technology. Let's use it. We can use technology to keep people healthy by sharing information so that your health care provider knows what medicines you are taking. And managing care, we can save money by managing diseases much more effectively than we do. For all those reasons, health care reform will help control the escalating costs, and that will help middle-income families. It will also help small businesses.

Small businesses need more competition among health care insurance companies. Today, if you are a small business owner, there are very few options available as to who you can choose as your health insurance company. As a result, you are subjected to unpredictable annual adjustments in your premiums. We already know that health insurance is too expensive. We already know that it increases every year by too high a percentage rate. But for a small business owner, it is worse than that. They can be subjected to a 20, 30, 40-percent increase in any given year because they are not in the large pools that larger companies are. Health insurance reform helps small businesses by providing larger pools that small businesses can get into, more competition. The State exchanges provide information that is critically important for small businesses to get a competitive product, to get the product they want. It makes it more affordable.

Let me give one example. We all have received letters. I have received lots of letters from my constituents. I want to read one I received. It comes from

Keith, a Maryland small business owner. He writes:

Currently, I have what is considered a ``Cadillac'' health

plan. It is an old CareFirst Blue Cross Blue Shield plan that

does not cover vision or dental [and has] a moderate

deductible. It only covers general health and drugs. My wife

is disabled and is unable to work. She is under age 50 and

has Medicare as a primary insurance and is on my family plan

as secondary where she gets drug coverage.

This person is a small business owner involved in a plan.

I have one child with some health issues on the plan as

well. Based [on] my situation, my health insurance options

are limited.

I am a small business owner and have had significant

increases in my insurance costs over the last 20 years.

Currently, I pay $29,000 for family coverage thru (sic) my

company and last year I had $9,900 in out of pocket expenses,

which is ``normal'' for my family. My income is above

$100,000, but well below the $250,000.

At one time I considered myself part of the middle class,

but with my ever increasing health care costs, I now have

second thoughts. . . .

It is unbelievable to me that a family like mine could be

in this situation. I know there are others far worse than

mine and can empathize with their plight. . . .

How can I be spending about $40,000 a year [on health care]

with no end in sight?

Well, help is on the way. The bills that have been reported out of our committees that the majority leader is now merging to bring to the Senate floor will help my constituent Keith, who finds that he cannot afford health care today even though he has certainly a reasonable income.

This legislation will also help our seniors. I mention that because there is a lot of concern about how we can strengthen the Medicare system, which is so important to our seniors. Well, the problem with Medicare today is that health care costs are going up. Medicare is a pretty efficient program. We know its administrative costs are far less than private insurance. But we cannot bring down the government cost of Medicare unless we bring down health care costs in America. That is exactly what the health care reform proposals will do.

It will also, by the way, use those savings to help our seniors by improving their prescription drug benefit so we can certainly make improvements to mitigate the doughnut hole on prescription drug coverage. It strengthens dramatically the preventative health care services that are offered our seniors under the Medicare system.

Well, the uninsured are also helped under this bill and those who are in danger of losing their health insurance by the State exchanges, where there will be more competition, more availability. The bill deals with affordability, providing subsidies for those who otherwise could not afford the health insurance.

One of the prime ways that is done is through the public option, so let me talk a moment about it. There has been a lot of discussion about it. I saw that it is going to be included in the bill in the House of Representatives. The majority leader is looking to include that in the bill that is going to be brought forward on the floor of this Senate.

A public option is nothing strange to Americans. It is not that the government takes over health care; it does not. Health care is provided by private doctors, private hospitals. The most successful public option program in America in health care is Medicare, and I do not see anyone coming and saying we should do Medicare in a different way. Medicare has worked well, with the government providing the way we collect the premiums and collect the dollars necessary to pay the doctors and hospitals that are private, and where the Medicare beneficiaries can choose their own doctor or hospital. That is the way it should be.

The reason it is important to include a public insurance option in the bill that is being brought forward is to make sure we have an affordable option for those who cannot find insurance, so we have an affordable product in every part of America. If you live in rural America, it is tough to find an insurance company that is interested in insuring you if you are in the individual market. That is just a fact of life.

So the public option provides an affordable option and provides more competition. In my own State of Maryland, two insurance companies represent 71 percent of the private insurance market. We do not have effective competition in our State of Maryland. The public option offers more competition. If we have more competition, it is going to be less costly. That is the reason we want to make sure it is included in the bill that is brought forward and the bill we hope will be reconciled with the House and sent to the President of the United States.

Mr. President, as I said when I took the floor, we have a unique opportunity. We have a unique opportunity in taking up health care reform and health insurance reform to help the people of our Nation. We have to make sure we get it right. I agree with my colleagues, we need to take the time to make sure we get this bill right, but we need to act. We need to act in order to protect middle-income families so they have affordable health care coverage in America.

We need to act to help small businesses so they have more choices, more competition, so they can afford to provide health insurance for their employees. We need to act for our seniors and those who are disabled in the Medicare system to make sure we strengthen Medicare for future generations and can expand the benefits that are covered under Medicare.

We need to act for the sake of our economy. We need to act for the sake of our Nation. I encourage my colleagues to get engaged in this debate so that, at the end of the day, we pass a bill that is going to be in the best interest of the people of this Nation.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Lauren Bateman, Caren Street, and Maria Urbina, from Senator Reid's office, be granted the privilege of the floor for the month of October.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I am certainly not going to object, may I inquire how long my colleague will speak?

I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized immediately after the Senator from Oklahoma.

I ask unanimous consent that Senator Kyl be recognized when I have completed my remarks.

Mr. President, let me respond to my friend in regard to the global climate change bill that was introduced by Senators Kerry and Boxer. Today Chairman Boxer started hearings before the Environment and Public Works Committee on the climate change bill. I agree with my colleague, we want to make sure we get this right. This is an important issue, and we want to take the time necessary to make sure this bill does what it needs to do.

There is a sense of urgency for many reasons. We can look globally at what is happening with climate change and the impact on the stability of countries. We now have climate migrants, those forced out of their homes because of rising sea levels.

I don't have to take my colleagues to Asia or Africa or Europe. I can take them to Maryland on the Eastern Shore, Smith Island is disappearing. The residents are concerned as to what is going to happen to their homes. I can show them in my own State the urgency of dealing with global climate change by talking to watermen who tell me the Chesapeake Bay is warming too quickly. As a result, the sea grasses are not surviving and juvenile crabs cannot survive, affecting the waterman's livelihood. There is a sense of urgency for the sake of our environment, for the sake of America being an international leader on this issue to move forward with global climate change.

Let me offer a reason with which I think everyone will agree: We need an energy policy that not only allows us

to lead on the environmental issues but also helps us on the economic front. Clean energy will mean new jobs, good jobs in America. We developed the technology for alternative and renewable energy sources. Let's keep the jobs in America. These are good jobs. This bill means more jobs in America by investing in technology that other countries are now investing more in than America. They understand the future is going to be in wind power and solar power and, yes, in nuclear power. This bill allows us to move forward so we can keep jobs in America.

Lastly, I think everyone will agree that from a strategic point, we need to use less energy and produce more in America. The bill Senator Kerry has brought forward will help us achieve those goals.

I look forward to debating global climate change and energy policy. I hope we can come together for the sake of the Nation, for the sake of the future, and develop an energy policy that not only will keep us safe, will not only help our economy, but will be responsible on international environmental issues and be an international leader.

Mr. President, shortly we will be voting on a cloture motion on the motion to proceed to the unemployment compensation issue. Senator Durbin addressed this issue a few minutes ago. I want to underscore how important it is for us to move forward.

Yesterday I had the opportunity to visit one of our employment offices in Maryland. We have a one-stop location where people looking for work can come and get the services of not only governmental agencies but nonprofit agencies to help them find employment. I have been to these offices in the past in Maryland. I have had a chance to talk to people who are seeking employment.

When I walked into that office yesterday, I was shocked to see how many people were there. It was hard to get through the door. People were coming in desperate to try to find jobs because there are no jobs out there for them to find. They are desperate to be employed, not only for the sake of having income but for the dignity that comes with employment. We have a problem out there. I think we all understand that.

I will give you two people with whom I talked yesterday: Bernice from Anne Arundel County, a resident who worked for a mortgage company until it went out of business, she has been unemployed since September 2008. She is about ready to lose her UI benefits. She talked about how difficult it was for her to talk about this, how difficult it was for her to tell her story. All she wants is a job. She wants the dignity and income of a job.

Charlene from Baltimore talked about being employed by Business Manager for Watermark Media. She lost her job in September 2008 when the company went out of business. She is a very qualified individual. Yet she cannot find employment. Her UI ran out on October 25. Her husband is expected to lose his job this week, and it is possible she will lose her family home.

That is what we are talking about, people in our communities who are unemployed and cannot find employment. We now know there is about 1.9 million Americans who will run out of unemployment benefits by the end of this year unless we act, unless we take action. That includes about 25,000 Marylanders who will find themselves without any benefits. Currently, there are over 15 million Americans who are unemployed and over 200,000 Marylanders who can't find jobs. We need to act. We need to act on behalf of Bernice and Charlene and the literally hundreds of thousands of Americans who shortly will be running out of their unemployment benefits.

The bill before us is an extension of an additional 14 weeks of benefits for every State in the country. The original bill that came over from the House had a trigger mechanism of 8.5 percent unemployment. I brought this chart to show my colleagues why it is important to extend benefits in every State in this Nation. I think Maryland is a typical State.

Our unemployment numbers may be a little bit lower than the national average. We are in the 7 percent unemployment rate. But look at the orange counties in my State of Maryland: Cecil County, 8.6 percent unemployment; Caroline County, 8.8 percent unemployment; Dorchester County, 10.9 percent unemployment; Somerset County, 9.5 percent; Washington County, one of the growth counties not far from here, 9.4 percent unemployment--some of those people commute to Washington to work--and then Baltimore City, the center of our State, 10.6 percent unemployment.

I thank the leadership for bringing forward an unemployment compensation proposal to extend benefits that apply to every State because we need it in Maryland. I could talk about minority unemployment and the fact that the African-American unemployment rate in this country is around 15 percent. The Latino unemployment rate is around 12 percent. There are pockets of unemployment in all of our States that are at extraordinarily high numbers, and that is why we need to extend the unemployment benefits.

Let me also point out that these are not benefits that aren't paid for. These are insurance benefits. They are paid for by the current workforce. They pay into a fund so we have money available in a recession to help those who lose their jobs and can't find employment. That is why it is called unemployment insurance benefits. It is there for this circumstance.

Is there anyone here who denies that we are not in a tough time if you are looking for a job? We all know that. So now is the time to extend unemployment benefits so people have income in order to be able to literally survive until our economy can rebound.

Let me also point out, I know there are a lot of us who are always looking for bills on which to put amendments. I understand the frustration of some of my colleagues. Here is a bill, it is a tax bill, let's put a provision on it. Quite frankly, I have a few provisions I would like to see enacted into law. This is not the right bill to do it on. If we put amendments on this bill and let it go back to the House with issues that are unrelated to unemployment compensation, it could take a long time to reconcile those differences.

We already have some differences with the House with regard to the States that qualify. Let's reconcile that quickly so that individuals such as Charlene, who currently are losing their benefits, know soon that they are going to be able to continue to get these unemployment benefits. It is important that we act quickly to get the job done.

One last point for my colleagues. This is important. It is the right thing to do. It is what government is here for--to help people who are literally out of luck because of no fault of their own but the economy. It is what we are supposed to do as far as the right type of social programs to protect people during tough economic times. But there is a tradeoff that helps our economy. This money goes directly back into our economy. Every dollar we pay out in unemployment insurance benefits will come back and have a multiplier effect of more money than we give in benefits in helping our economy grow. So this is the right remedy to help our economy. It is the right thing to do for the 1.9 million Americans who otherwise would lose their benefits by the end of the year.

We have a chance in just a few minutes to move this bill forward so it can be reconciled with the House quickly, and then we can assure the people of our community that, indeed, we responded and provided the appropriate type of relief for those who cannot find employment today.

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

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 October 27, 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 Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on October 27, 2009, at 2:15 p.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 October 27, 2009, at 9:30 a.m. in Room 406 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building to hold a hearing entitled, ``Legislative Hearing on S. 1733, Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on October 27, 2009, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, Subcommittee on Domestic and Foreign Marketing, Inspection and Plant and Animal Health and the Subcommittee on Production, Income Protection, and Price Support, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on October 27, 2009, at 2:30 p.m. in room 216 of the Hart Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that privileges of the floor be granted to the following member of my staff during the pendency of this nomination: Troy Ware.