Floor Statements

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Indian Affairs will meet on Thursday, December 3, 2009, at 2:15 p.m. in room 628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building to conduct a business meeting on pending committee issues, to be followed immediately by an oversight hearing on Expanding Dental Health Care in Indian Country, and a second hearing entitled ``Promises Made, Promises Broken: The Impact of Chronic Underfunding of Contract Health Services.''

Those wishing additional information may contact the Indian Affairs Committee at 202-224-2251.

Mr. President, I note that this has been a lengthy discussion already. My guess is that because this is merely a motion to proceed to a subject on the floor of the Senate--my guess is that were this motion to be approved, we will have weeks on the floor of the Senate talking specifically

about amendments, about approaches that will strengthen and improve some portions of the legislation that will be before us. The subject is health care.

Frankly, health care is personal to everybody--from senior citizens on Medicare to people who get their health care policy from their employment, to families who are struggling to pay for increasing costs of health care year after year. So the question before the Senate tomorrow evening is: Should we debate and vote on these matters? It is not should we approve a health care bill but should we proceed to the bill to have a discussion and have some amendments.

Health care has changed dramatically in a very short period of time. My background is from a town of 300 people. In my little town, as was the case many decades ago, we had a town doctor in a town of 300 people. It doesn't happen much anymore. We had a doctor, Doc Hill. He came when he was a young man, and he stayed until he died. He delivered probably 1,500 babies. They had a Doc Hill Day once, and all the babies he birthed came to march in the parade in my little hometown.

As times changed, medicine changed, things changed. Doc Hill used to go on house calls to the farms, yes, to deliver babies and to deal with illness, house calls all around the region. Times changed and those practices changed as well.

The big debates in the last half century or perhaps century about health care have, in most cases, advanced health care. I was not here, of course, nor were most of my colleagues--I guess a couple of them were perhaps here--during the debate on Medicare. I remember vividly as a very young boy the old folks in my hometown, some of whom had nothing, lived in little shacks, certainly had no health care, no health care coverage, because when you got old, back in those days, no insurance company wanted to cover you, even if you could pay for insurance. Nobody was chasing old folks to say: Now that you are 70, 80 years old, can't we sell you a health insurance policy? They couldn't find health insurance.

Half the senior citizens in this country couldn't get health insurance. So the Congress came together and said: What do we do about the people in their sunset years, those who helped build this country, went to war, built the roads, built communities? What do we do about that? So they passed Medicare.

Medicare has been an unbelievable success. Yes, there are financial strains on Medicare, but that is born of success. People are living longer and over a period of a longer life, they often need more health care. But that is a success, not a failure. We have changed medicine in our country in many ways. Medicare is one example.

Miracle medicines, medicines that did not exist some decades ago now can be used to keep people out of acute care hospital beds. Vaccines can now prevent people from getting sick. Polio was cured. Smallpox was cured. Think of the changes over all of these years. And, yes, it is the case that if you have a very serious illness, in most cases you want to be in this country.

It is the case, however, that many in this country cannot afford to access the health care that exists. But people come here, not elsewhere, for good health care. We have terrific clinics and opportunities for people to get good health care in this country. The problem is, the cost is relentlessly increasing every single year and pricing health care out of the reach of too many Americans. Too many families cannot figure out how to pay for health care. They cannot pay for the increased insurance premium that is going up double digits every year. They have to go to the grocery store and stop in the pharmacy to figure out what a prescription drug is going to cost. They buy their medication first and see what they have left for groceries.

The fact is, prices of health care are marching relentlessly upward, so too many people do not have coverage. Families often cannot afford it. Small businesses cannot afford the price increases for health care. So what do we do about that?

If there is a sick child, should a sick child who is crying because of pain be told: Your visit to a doctor depends on how much money your parents have? I don't think so. So we passed legislation dealing with that, providing health care opportunities for children who come from families of meager means.

The question for us now is, Is there a way for us to extend health care coverage and also to put the brakes on these relentlessly increasing costs? If at the end of the day legislation that is considered here does not put the brakes on price or cost increases, I don't want to be a part of that. I am not going to be supporting things that really do not put the brakes on these relentless increases in health care costs. That is the purpose of all of this, is to try to get a handle on costs somehow.

There was an author named Barbara Ehrenreich who described visiting with a friend of hers from a European country. She told her friend that she had breast cancer and had difficulty getting insurance because she had breast cancer. She said: But isn't that when you would most need insurance? Not understanding, of course, in our country you are least likely able to get what you need when you need it the most.

That is another question in this set of issues, preexisting conditions. Is there a way for us to make it easier for people to access health insurance when they really need health insurance because they have a debilitating illness? I would hope so.

What should happen when you pay an insurance company premiums for 10 or 15 years? You pay every month and all of a sudden the insurance company says: We are going to terminate you. What should happen? Is that fair? I don't think so.

Shouldn't there be some opportunities to address those kinds of things--the denial of coverage, the termination of coverage? I think so.

Let me also say as we discuss these policies, there is another element that is not very often discussed that I want to amplify, and that is the issue of personal responsibility--personal responsibility that goes well outside legislative activities.

Two-thirds of the people in this country are overweight. One-third are obese, according to statistics. I invited someone from Safeway Corporation to meet with our caucus. The CEO of Safeway, Steve Burd, has met with folks in both caucuses in the Senate. He told of a very interesting program at Safeway.

I think there were about 45,000 employees in this group, and he did the following. He said: Here is your health insurance plan. Here is the amount the Safeway company will pay, and here is the amount that you pay. So that amount the employee pays is X. But the company said to the employees, you can reduce the amount you pay if you do four things. You can reduce it in four steps: Do you have high blood pressure? You have to be on medicine to control it, and we will pay for the medicine.

Do you have high cholesterol? You have to be on medicine to control it, and we will pay for it.

Are you overweight? Then you have to be on some sort of weight reduction program, and we will pay for that.

Are you smoking? Then you have to stop or be in a smoking cessation program, and we will pay for that.

If you don't do any of those things, you don't want to do those things, you have high cholesterol, high blood pressure, smoke, and are well overweight, that is all right, here is your copay. It will be higher. But if you do all four of those things, and the company will pay in each instance for the cost of it, you will pay four steps below, less money every single month.

He says with that program, they have had flat health costs for 5 straight years. Think of that: 5 years flat cost. While the rest of the country is seeing these relentlessly increasing costs, that program provided flat costs, no cost increases. Why? Because they incentivized personal behavior in the right way: Do this, improve your health, we will pay the cost of it and save yourself some money. That is exactly the right thing to do.

I hope as we have this discussion, a fair amount of that impulse can be a part of what we are trying to do--incentivize the right behavior, personal responsibility. That makes a great deal of sense to me.

One of the things I have always supported is the issue of health care coverage at the workplace. That is where most Americans get their health care coverage. I don't want to do anything

to disincentivize that. I want, whether it is small, medium, or large businesses, for us to say: You know what, good for you. You are providing health care to your employees. We support that. I don't want to disincentivize that; I want to incentivize that.

I know it is hard for small businesses during tough economic times to pay 10 percent more this year than last year and 10 percent more next year than this year. That is what they are seeing in health care costs. That is why it is important for us to put the brakes on these cost increases, for small businesses, medium-size businesses and large businesses as well, to help them be competitive.

We have to find a way to do that. I am not talking about diminishing the quality of health care. I am saying let's put the brakes on the price increases year after year. Let's find out what is causing it--and I have some ideas about that--and let's put the brakes on it. That is what this debate needs to be about.

I want to talk about an amendment I intend to offer as soon as we are able to offer amendments. It is an amendment, by the way, that is bipartisan, unlike a lot of things in this Chamber. My amendment was cosponsored by the late Ted Kennedy. It is also cosponsored by Senator Olympia Snowe, Senator John McCain, Senator Chuck Grassley, Senator Debbie Stabenow, and the list goes on including Republicans and Democrats. The amendment is about prescription drug prices, and I want to describe it.

It says let's give the American people the freedom to access the identical FDA-approved drugs when they are sold for a fraction of the price everywhere else in the world. The American consumer is charged the highest prices in the world for brand-name drugs.

By the way, here is what is happening to price increases for prescription drugs. We see the rate of inflation in this country. That is the yellow line. Take a look at drug prices, the red line. By the way, this past year, there was a 9 percent increase in prescription drug pricing.

This issue is not some irrelevant issue. There are a whole lot of folks who use prescription drugs to manage their disease and keep them out of a hospital. I understand many of these drugs are miracle drugs. I don't want to slow the ability of companies to create drugs, do research and so on.

A substantial amount of the research goes on at the National Institutes of Health, which is publicly funded. The knowledge from that research is made available to the drug companies, and that knowledge leads to a product. Good for them.

But what I don't like is the fact that those same pharmaceutical companies charge the American consumers the highest prices in the world. They will say: If you offer an amendment, you Senators, Republicans and Democrats, that tries to give the American people the freedom to access the same identical FDA-approved drug when it is sold in Spain or Italy or Canada--name the country--when it is sold in a number of countries for a fraction of the price, then somehow it will harm research and development on new drugs.

That is not true at all. Those name-brand drugs are sold for a much lower price in Europe, and they do more research in Europe--at least that was a couple years ago. I haven't seen recent data. The fact is, they have lower prices and they have done more research.

In any event, there is more money spent on advertising, promotion, and marketing than there is on research. Watch television tonight and see when you see the next commercial that says: Shouldn't you be taking some Flomax--whatever that is. Shouldn't you ask the doctor whether the purple pill is right for you? Go find a doctor and say: I don't have any aches and pains, there is nothing wrong with me, but isn't the purple pill right for me? That is what the commercial tells you to do.

I haven't the foggiest idea what the purple pill is used for, but they relentlessly push this advertising. Knock it off. Maybe they should use some of that money for a little more research and development, I say.

To put a finer point on it, if I might, this is the price of Lipitor. This is the new price, by the way--$4.78 in the United States for a 20- milligram tablet and $2.05 in Canada.

By the way, here is what the two bottles look like. The same pill is put in these bottles, made by the same company--Lipitor. It is the same manufacturing plant in Ireland. They put the same pill in these two bottles. This one goes to the United States; this one goes to Canada. The American consumer has the privilege of paying $4.78 per tablet, and the Canadian buys it for $2.05. That was June 4, 2009, when I priced it.

It is not just Lipitor, although Lipitor is the most popular cholesterol-lowering drug. But Zocor, a 20-milligram tablet, the same thing, $5.16, $2.45, U.S. price versus Canadian price. I used Canada because it is a close neighbor. I could have used Spain, Italy, France, Germany.

By the way, some folks on the floor of the Senate will support the pharmaceutical industry's pricing policies of pricing their brand-name drugs the highest in the United States--I don't support that. Some will. They will say you can't really import drugs safely. The fact is, in Europe they have been importing drugs for 20 years. They have something called parallel trading. If you are in Germany and want to buy a prescription drug from Spain, no problem. If you are in Italy and want to buy it from France, no problem. You have parallel trading of prescription drugs. The consumers have the freedom to buy it where it is least expensive.

In our country, consumers don't have that freedom, and our amendment gives the American consumer the freedom to shop for those prescription drugs where they are sold for the most reasonable prices. I am not interested in having consumers buy their drugs from other countries. I am interested in the opportunity to buy drugs at a fraction of the price, forcing the pharmaceutical to reprice their drugs in this country.

I sat on a straw bale once at a farm where we had a town meeting. We all sat around on these bales and talked. An old codger there, about 80 years old, said to me: My missus--he meant his wife--my wife has been fighting breast cancer for 3 years. Every 3 months, we have driven to Canada to buy Tamoxifen. That is the medicine my wife has taken to fight breast cancer. Every 3 months, we drive to Canada to buy Tamoxifen.

I said: Why do you drive to Canada?

He said: Because it costs me 20 cents for what I would pay a dollar in the United States. I can't afford it in the United States, so we drive to Canada.

The fact is, they will allow someone like that to drive across with 90 days of use. But most Americans do not have that opportunity and most Americans could not access that drug from Canada because it would be against the law at this point.

I want to give the American people the freedom to be able to access FDA-approved drugs, and the legislation I will introduce with my colleagues has the most substantial safety provisions, including batch lots and pedigrees on these drugs that will make the entire drug supply much safer than it is now.

Price increases in 2009. The paper this week described what is happening with the pharmaceutical industry in pricing drugs. Enbrel, an arthritis drug, increased 12 percent this year. Nexium, for ulcers, increased 7 percent this year. Lipitor is up 5 percent this year. Singulair is up 12 present this year. Plavix's price increased 8 percent this year; that is an anticoagulant. Osteoporosis--if you are taking Boniva, there was an 18-percent increase this year. What is the deal? Does anybody understand what the reason for this is, these kinds of unbelievable price increases?

I am going to offer this amendment with my colleagues. My expectation is if you want to say at the end of the day that you have really done something to address the issue of skyrocketing prices in health care-- you can't say that if you decide you are not going to do something to put the brakes on prescription drug pricing, because the American people should no longer pay the highest prices for brand-name drugs in the world. That is not something that should be allowed. It is certainly not something that is fair to the American people and not something that we ought to turn a blind eye to when we are talking about legislation here.

My legislation will be about giving the American people freedom--the freedom to access those drugs from a number of other countries named in our bill that have an identical chain of custody to our country, where it will be safe and secure for the American consumer to access those drugs at a fraction of the cost.

I want to say that some are pointing out that the issue of health care is also a jobs issue because the fact is, this is a significant burden on employers; that is, those who hire workers and who are covering them with benefits, as part of their compensation including health care. So it is a jobs issue, and when the burden becomes too great, it destroys jobs. That is just a fact. So I want to talk about jobs for a moment because even as we describe these issues, which I think are very important, they relate to jobs. But I want to go further to talk about jobs just because I have a bit of time today.

I have seen some things in the press recently that have bothered me, some stories. I want to describe them.

First of all, Senator Durbin and I are leading a task force to talk about how we put together a new effort to try to create jobs. What kinds of incentives will allow small- and medium-size businesses to create new jobs? What are the things that will get the economic engine restarted, not just in GDP but putting people back on payrolls, putting people back to work?

I noticed that small- and medium-size businesses are having great difficulty in this country, even those that want to expand, because they can't find the financing to do it. I saw a report this week about the large financial institutions that got TARP funds, the bailout funds. The 22 banks that got the most help from the Treasury's bailout programs cut their small business loan balances by a collective $10.5 billion over the past six months. And the fact is that Wells Fargo got $73.8 billion in TARP funds, and in the last 4 months they have cut the amount of financing of small business loans by 3.9 percent. Think of that--a company gets $73.8 billion in TARP funds and cuts lending needed by small businesses by 3.9 percent. Bank of America, $41.9 billion in TARP funds, and they cut small business lending by 5 percent. I am quoting from a Treasury Department report, by the way, comparing 4/30/90 to 9/30/09. JPMorgan Chase, $25.4 billion in TARP funds, and they cut lending to small business 2.9 percent. American Express--the list goes on. I don't understand this at all.

So the question is, How do we try to give some help to small- and medium-size businesses and see if we can restart this economic engine so that they can put people back to work? They are the job generators in this country. And we are looking for a mix of ideas. What are the best ideas we can use to try to put people back on payrolls?

But what I want to talk about just for a moment is something I saw in the Washington Post this week when the President was in Asia. It talks about:

[Folks from the] 21 Pacific Rim Nations at an annual event

that this year has put some of America's policies in the line

of fire.

A chorus of complaints about U.S. trade policies . . . in

the hour before the President's arrival [in Singapore].

Leaders of Mexico, China and Russia broadly condemned

protectionism . . . endorsing free trade as the best engine

of growth--

And so on.

The bluntest criticism . . . [said] America is moving in

the opposite sense of free trade.

China and others have said the same.

Let me just say, it takes an unbelievable amount of gall to suggest that we are moving in the opposite direction of free trade. We have an unbelievable trade deficit, and this is a trade deficit with China. It is a sea of red ink that has gotten worse and worse--a $266 billion deficit last year, a $266 billion trade deficit with China, and China is telling us we have a problem with free trade? They are the ones that have closed markets. We are the sponge for all the goods China wants to send us, only to find out we can't get into their markets. This is about jobs. This is about jobs that leave our country and go there. When we start talking about how to create jobs, maybe we ought to straighten out this trade mess.

Let me say, there is a discussion in the same story about Korea and the trade agreement with Korea. I think it is pretty interesting. This is what happened with Korea last year. They sent us about 600,000 cars. They put them on ships and sent them to America to be sold. We were able to sell them 100,000 cars. Why? They don't want American cars on the streets of Korea. Ninety-eight percent of the cars on their roads are made in Korea because that is what they insist and that is what they want. They are criticizing us about the lack of free trade? That is unbelievable.

Let me describe the Cash for Clunkers Program in this country. We did a Cash for Clunkers Program. Yes, it put people in some showrooms and sold some cars. The Chinese and the Koreans had cash for clunkers programs. A lot of us would have liked to have said: You know what, if you are going to spend some money on cars, maybe at least spend it on cars that are made in manufacturing plants in this country. But that was not a requirement because it was so-called illegal under the WTO rules.

For example, when Japan and Korea decided, for their own economy, on a cash for clunkers program, they figured out a way to favor their domestically produced cars.

In Japan, only 5 percent of the cars were imports and 95 percent were made in Japan because that is the way they wanted it in 2007. After the cash for clunkers program, even fewer cars came from imports. Why? Because Japan had what was called a certification requirement that was open to only a small number of foreign vehicles. For example, they would allow the sale of a Toyota Land Cruiser, but you couldn't buy a Ford Explorer in Japan under the cash for clunkers program.

Yet we have these folks saying to us that we are not for free trade? Excuse me? How much gall do you have to suggest that a country with a $600-plus billion annual trade deficit, $260 billion of which is from China--to have our President go overseas and have others suggest that somehow we are not owning up to our responsibilities in trade?

The reason I make this point is this is about jobs. I think restarting the economic engine is an unbelievable priority in this country. A good job that pays well makes almost everything else possible. There is no social program in America as important as a good job that pays well. That is what makes everything possible for you and your family.

When we see the millions of people who have been laid off as a result of the deepest recession since the Great Depression, we need to get about our business. Senator Reid and Senator Durbin and I are working on that need, to address it. One of the ways to address it is with this trade issue as well.

Let me conclude as I started, talking about the bill that is before us. The legislation we are dealing with is health care, and the vote that will occur is on the motion to proceed. There is a lot of hyperbole about these issues. This is a motion to proceed to a piece of legislation that we will then debate for weeks and we will amend, I expect.

I just described one of my amendments that I feel very strongly about. It will be bipartisan. I fully expect it to pass. I have a couple of other amendments as well that I will offer.

I don't want health care to be concluded by the Congress in some way or another without the Indian Health Care Improvement Act, which has been languishing for many years here in the Congress, being a part of it. These are the first Americans, and too often these days the first Americans have second-class health care despite the fact that we signed the treaties on the dotted line and we owned up to the trust obligations that we have, that we have never quite delivered in health care, housing, and education. I have spent a lot of time, as have some of my colleagues, on the subject of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act. I hope very much that in this discussion--and I certainly will raise it as an amendment--we will have the opportunity to do what we need to do with respect to Indian health care.

I know there will be a lot of opportunity in the coming weeks to describe virtually all the things people want to describe about every single issue. I want to come back to something I mentioned in the middle of my presentation; that is, personal responsibility.

We can do all we want to do. We can have all kinds of legislation. But there also has to be some personal responsibility with respect to health care. I

hope, whatever we do legislatively, if, in fact, at the end of the day the legislation moves forward, I hope we remember the lessons we have learned from some companies around the country that are deciding that personal responsibility and the incentives for that kind of personal behavior is the right way to address some of these rising costs of health care. Certainly the Safeway example I described is in that genre.

Our time is about up. I want to say again that we will vote tomorrow night, come back after Thanksgiving, and my guess is that for 3 or 4 weeks we will have a substantial, generous amount of discussion about how best to put the brakes on health care costs. This has to be done in a way that is fiscally responsible. It has to be done in a way that is effective. If not, there ought not be legislation passed, in my judgment. If so, if we can do this in a way that is fiscally responsible, in a way that helps the American people and begins to put the brakes on the skyrocketing health care costs, then I would want to be part of that.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, on behalf of Chairman Baucus, I ask unanimous consent that the list of staff from the Senate Finance Committee which is at the desk be granted the privileges of the floor during debate on the motion to proceed to H.R. 3509 and the cloture vote on the motion to proceed.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H. Con. Res. 214, the adjournment resolution received from the House and at the desk.

I ask unanimous consent that the concurrent resolution be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

I ask unanimous consent that S. 1194, as reported by the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, be star printed with the changes at the desk.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider en bloc Executive Calendars Nos. 535, 536, 537, 538, 539, 540, 541, 542, 543, 544, 545, 546, 547, 548, 549, 551, and all nominations on the Secretary's Desk in the Foreign Service; that the nominations be confirmed en bloc; the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc; that no further motions be in order; that any statements relating to the nomination be printed in the Record; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate resume legislative session.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:45 a.m., tomorrow, Saturday, November 21; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate resume consideration of the motion to proceed to H.R. 3590, with debate as provided for under the previous order. Finally, I ask that the Republicans control the time from 8 p.m. until 9:30 p.m. tonight.

Mr. President, at 8 p.m. tomorrow, the Senate will proceed to a rollcall vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to H.R. 3590, the legislative vehicle for the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2009.

I ask unanimous consent that following the remarks of Senator Enzi, the Senate adjourn under the previous order.

Madam President, I would like to add my congratulations to Senator Robert C. Byrd on his historic achievement today. Not only is he the longest serving senator in the history of this body, but today he is the longest serving Member of Congress in the history of our Nation.

For more than 50 years, Senator Byrd has been a steadfast defender of the Constitution and the principles on which it stands. Senator Byrd is truly a statesman, a patriot, a proud son of West Virginia, and an important voice in the history of this country.

Senator Byrd has come a long way from the coal fields of West Virginia where he grew up in poverty and learned the value of hard work. He first came to Washington in January 1953--20,774 days ago-- when he was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives. He served in the House for three terms before being elected to the Senate, where he has served the people of West Virginia faithfully for the last 50 years.

Over the years, Senator Byrd has never forgotten his roots and the State and the people that he loves. The people of West Virginia have recognized his achievements and hard work on their behalf in the Senate and have elected him for an unprecedented nine terms in the United States Senate. He has served with 11 Presidents. Can you believe that?

To add to his long list of achievements, Senator Byrd has also held more leadership positions than any other Senator in history. This includes Senate majority whip, chairman of the Democratic Conference, Senate minority leader, and Senate majority leader. Currently, Senator Byrd is the president pro tempore. Throughout his career, Senator Byrd has cast nearly 18,600 roll call votes in five decades of service in the Senate. I'd say that's an unprecedented record.

Senator Byrd is also the longest serving member of the esteemed Appropriations Committee. He has served as its chairman or ranking member since 1989 until stepping down earlier this year. It has been my honor to serve with him on the Appropriations Committee and I have learned a tremendous amount under his leadership.

Many of us know Senator Byrd as our resident historian. He has a wealth of knowledge about the procedures of the Senate and shares enthusiastic stories of the many interesting events that have occurred in this Chamber. He is also the author of a magisterial four-volume set about this body entitled ``The Senate, 1789-1989'', and other works.

He also had a unique talent outside the halls of Congress. Senator Byrd learned to play the fiddle at a young age and carried it with him everywhere he went. His skill with the instrument led to performances at the Kennedy Center and on a national television appearance on Hee Haw. He even recorded his own album, Mountain Fiddler.

No tribute to Senator Byrd would be complete without mentioning his life's love, Erma Ora James. For nearly 69 years, the Byrds were inseparable, traveling throughout their native West Virginia and crossing the globe together. Sadly, Mrs. Byrd passed away on March 25, 2006, but Senator Byrd speaks lovingly of her and their life together each day.

The times have changed considerably since Senator Byrd first came to Washington. We have seen a man walk on the Moon. We have mapped the human genome, and we have seen unbelievable technological advances that have changed the way we live, work and communicate. But through it all, the one constant is Senator Byrd's steadfast championing of our Constitution and the people of West Virginia.

Senator Byrd is to many the voice of the Senate, and it has been my privilege to serve with him and learn from his stories and wisdom. The Senate is a stronger institution and a better place because of the many years of service of Senator Byrd. I join my colleagues in offering my congratulations to him on this important day and wish him well as he celebrates his 92nd birthday later this week.

Mr. President, at the request of the majority leader, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate recess subject to the call of the Chair.

Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Indian Affairs will meet on Thursday, November 19, 2009, at 2:15 p.m. in Room 628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building to conduct a business meeting on S. 1635, the 7th Generation Promise: Indian Youth Suicide Prevention Act of 2009, and S. 1790, a bill to amend the Indian Health Care Improvement Act to revise and extend that act, and for other purposes, to be followed immediately by an oversight hearing to examine drug smuggling and gang activity in Indian country.

Those wishing additional information may contact the Indian Affairs Committee at 202-224-2251.

Mr. President, will the Senator from Virginia yield for a unanimous consent request?

I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized following the presentation by the Senator from Virginia.