Floor Statements

Mr. President, today I introduced the Indian Health Care Improvement Reauthorization and Extension Act of 2009. We face a bona fide crisis in health care in our Native American communities, and this bill is a first step toward fulfilling our treaty obligations and trust responsibility to provide quality health care in Indian Country. I introduce this bill on behalf of myself, Leader Reid and Senators Murkowski, Udall of New Mexico, Begich, Franken, Whitehouse, Inouye, Akaka, Johnson, Tester, Conrad, Burris, Stabenow, Udall of Colorado, and Klobuchar.

As Chairman of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, I have again made health care a top priority for the Committee this Congress. Native Americans suffer staggering health disparities due to an outdated, strained and underfunded health care system. We have a federal health care system for Native Americans that is only funded at about half of its need. Clinician vacancy rates within this system are high and misdiagnosis is rampant. Only those with ``life or limb'' emergencies seem to get care. Native Americans die of tuberculosis at a rate 600 percent higher than the general population, suicide rates are nearly double, alcoholism rates are 510 percent higher, and diabetes rates are 189 percent higher than the general population.

These numbers are appalling and represent Third World conditions right here in the U.S.

I have heard the heartbreaking stories about the lack of health care on our Native American reservations: people like Ta'shon Rain Littlelight, Jami Rose Jetty, Russell Lente and Avis Little Wind, who likely still would be living today had they had access to adequate health care. Our Federal system has failed them and so many other Native Americans. We owe our First Americans something better, and the bill I introduced today with my colleagues will provide a better system.

For over a decade, Indian Country has asked Congress to reauthorize and amend the Indian Health Care Improvement Act, P.L. 94-437. The National Steering Committee for Reauthorization, National Congress of American Indians, National Indian Health Board, and other Native American health advocates have been dedicated to improving the health care available to Native Americans across the country. I too am committed to ensuring the United States fulfills its trust responsibility to provide decent health care to the Native Americans.

Last Congress, the Senate passed the Indian Health Care Improvement Act Amendments of 2008, which would have brought needed improvements to the Native American health care system. The bill passed by an overwhelming 83 to 10 vote. This was the first time in almost 17 years that the Senate considered and passed a Native American health care bill. Ultimately, the bill failed to be considered in the House of Representatives. My colleagues and I remain committed to getting a bill enacted into law.

In July, I developed a Native American health concept paper which was sent out to Indian Country for comments. I and the Committee on Indian Affairs held many listening sessions and meetings with many Native Americans around the country to discuss the concept paper. In addition, the Committee has held five hearings focused on Native American health issues this Congress. The Committee has worked to compile the feedback received from the concept paper and other meetings to develop the Native American health bill I introduced today.

Similar legislation has been considered in the 106, 107, 108, 109, and 110 Congresses. Today, my colleagues and I put forward a Native American health bill for the 111 Congress which builds on the work of prior Congresses, but goes beyond to include innovative solutions and reforms for the Native American health care system.

I would like to highlight some of the important updates the Indian Health Care Improvement Reauthorization and Extension Act of 2009 will bring to

the Native American health care system.

Perhaps most importantly, the Native American health bill permanently reauthorizes all current laws governing the Native American health care system. This means that once this bill is passed, Indian Country will never again have to wait nearly 20 years for a reauthorization of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act.

This bill also authorizes long-term care services, including hospice care, assisted living, long-term care and home- and community-based care. Current law does not allow for these services to be provided by the Indian Health Service or tribal facilities. Although some areas of Indian Country are merely focused on addressing life or limb medical emergencies, other areas are in need of long-term care. Thus, I believe they should be authorized.

In addition, the bill establishes mental and behavioral health programs beyond alcohol and substance abuse, such as fetal alcohol spectrum disorders, child sexual abuse and prevention treatment programs. The mental health needs in Native American communities extend beyond alcohol and substance abuse, in fact over \1/3\ of the health care needs in Indian Country are related to mental health. The comprehensive mental and behavioral health programs established as a result of this bill will bring necessary care and resources to Native Americans.

In order to address the tragic level of youth suicide, the bill includes behavioral health provisions solely focused on preventing Native American youth suicide. The youth suicide rate in Indian Country is 3.5 times higher than the general population. Earlier this year, I chaired an Indian Affairs hearing to draw attention to this important topic.

The bill also incorporates many new ideas aimed at improving the access to health care available to Native Americans. The bill authorizes projects which will incentivize tribes to use innovative facilities construction which save money and expand the health care services available to Native American communities. For example, these projects include the use of modular component facility construction and mobile health stations.

Modular component health facilities can be built at often one-third the cost and a fraction of the time of a typical health facility. In addition, mobile health stations will allow for Native Americans in rural areas without a hospital, increased access to specialty health services like dialysis, same-day surgery, dental care, or other services. Currently, there is an estimated $3 billion backlog for maintenance, improvement and construction of Native American health care facilities. In addition, the average age of an Indian Health Service facility is 33 years, as compared to 7 years in the general population. These innovative health care facilities will go a long way in this disparity and improving access to health care for Native Americans across the country.

The Native American health bill establishes a health delivery demonstration project. This project provides for convenient care services, which could be offered in local grocery stores and other venues, to make health care more available to Native American communities. The health delivery demonstration project authorizes the Indian Health Service to consider other innovative health delivery models, like community health centers, and other models which will increase access to health care services.

I want to end by saying the need for health care is not new for Indian Country. Nowadays, the need for national health care reform is front page news, but our Native Americans have long been in need of health care reforms. Therefore, I intend to offer this Native American health bill as an amendment to any national health care reform bill considered on the Senate floor.

I want to thank all the Native American health advocates who assisted us in the development of this crucial piece of legislation. The Federal Government signed the dotted lines years ago, and today, we make an important step towards finally fulfilling those obligations.

Mr. President, today I introduced the Indian Health Care Improvement Reauthorization and Extension Act of 2009. We face a bona fide crisis in health care in our Native American communities, and this bill is a first step toward fulfilling our treaty obligations and trust responsibility to provide quality health care in Indian Country. I introduce this bill on behalf of myself, Leader Reid and Senators Murkowski, Udall of New Mexico, Begich, Franken, Whitehouse, Inouye, Akaka, Johnson, Tester, Conrad, Burris, Stabenow, Udall of Colorado, and Klobuchar.

As Chairman of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, I have again made health care a top priority for the Committee this Congress. Native Americans suffer staggering health disparities due to an outdated, strained and underfunded health care system. We have a federal health care system for Native Americans that is only funded at about half of its need. Clinician vacancy rates within this system are high and misdiagnosis is rampant. Only those with ``life or limb'' emergencies seem to get care. Native Americans die of tuberculosis at a rate 600 percent higher than the general population, suicide rates are nearly double, alcoholism rates are 510 percent higher, and diabetes rates are 189 percent higher than the general population.

These numbers are appalling and represent Third World conditions right here in the U.S.

I have heard the heartbreaking stories about the lack of health care on our Native American reservations: people like Ta'shon Rain Littlelight, Jami Rose Jetty, Russell Lente and Avis Little Wind, who likely still would be living today had they had access to adequate health care. Our Federal system has failed them and so many other Native Americans. We owe our First Americans something better, and the bill I introduced today with my colleagues will provide a better system.

For over a decade, Indian Country has asked Congress to reauthorize and amend the Indian Health Care Improvement Act, P.L. 94-437. The National Steering Committee for Reauthorization, National Congress of American Indians, National Indian Health Board, and other Native American health advocates have been dedicated to improving the health care available to Native Americans across the country. I too am committed to ensuring the United States fulfills its trust responsibility to provide decent health care to the Native Americans.

Last Congress, the Senate passed the Indian Health Care Improvement Act Amendments of 2008, which would have brought needed improvements to the Native American health care system. The bill passed by an overwhelming 83 to 10 vote. This was the first time in almost 17 years that the Senate considered and passed a Native American health care bill. Ultimately, the bill failed to be considered in the House of Representatives. My colleagues and I remain committed to getting a bill enacted into law.

In July, I developed a Native American health concept paper which was sent out to Indian Country for comments. I and the Committee on Indian Affairs held many listening sessions and meetings with many Native Americans around the country to discuss the concept paper. In addition, the Committee has held five hearings focused on Native American health issues this Congress. The Committee has worked to compile the feedback received from the concept paper and other meetings to develop the Native American health bill I introduced today.

Similar legislation has been considered in the 106, 107, 108, 109, and 110 Congresses. Today, my colleagues and I put forward a Native American health bill for the 111 Congress which builds on the work of prior Congresses, but goes beyond to include innovative solutions and reforms for the Native American health care system.

I would like to highlight some of the important updates the Indian Health Care Improvement Reauthorization and Extension Act of 2009 will bring to

the Native American health care system.

Perhaps most importantly, the Native American health bill permanently reauthorizes all current laws governing the Native American health care system. This means that once this bill is passed, Indian Country will never again have to wait nearly 20 years for a reauthorization of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act.

This bill also authorizes long-term care services, including hospice care, assisted living, long-term care and home- and community-based care. Current law does not allow for these services to be provided by the Indian Health Service or tribal facilities. Although some areas of Indian Country are merely focused on addressing life or limb medical emergencies, other areas are in need of long-term care. Thus, I believe they should be authorized.

In addition, the bill establishes mental and behavioral health programs beyond alcohol and substance abuse, such as fetal alcohol spectrum disorders, child sexual abuse and prevention treatment programs. The mental health needs in Native American communities extend beyond alcohol and substance abuse, in fact over \1/3\ of the health care needs in Indian Country are related to mental health. The comprehensive mental and behavioral health programs established as a result of this bill will bring necessary care and resources to Native Americans.

In order to address the tragic level of youth suicide, the bill includes behavioral health provisions solely focused on preventing Native American youth suicide. The youth suicide rate in Indian Country is 3.5 times higher than the general population. Earlier this year, I chaired an Indian Affairs hearing to draw attention to this important topic.

The bill also incorporates many new ideas aimed at improving the access to health care available to Native Americans. The bill authorizes projects which will incentivize tribes to use innovative facilities construction which save money and expand the health care services available to Native American communities. For example, these projects include the use of modular component facility construction and mobile health stations.

Modular component health facilities can be built at often one-third the cost and a fraction of the time of a typical health facility. In addition, mobile health stations will allow for Native Americans in rural areas without a hospital, increased access to specialty health services like dialysis, same-day surgery, dental care, or other services. Currently, there is an estimated $3 billion backlog for maintenance, improvement and construction of Native American health care facilities. In addition, the average age of an Indian Health Service facility is 33 years, as compared to 7 years in the general population. These innovative health care facilities will go a long way in this disparity and improving access to health care for Native Americans across the country.

The Native American health bill establishes a health delivery demonstration project. This project provides for convenient care services, which could be offered in local grocery stores and other venues, to make health care more available to Native American communities. The health delivery demonstration project authorizes the Indian Health Service to consider other innovative health delivery models, like community health centers, and other models which will increase access to health care services.

I want to end by saying the need for health care is not new for Indian Country. Nowadays, the need for national health care reform is front page news, but our Native Americans have long been in need of health care reforms. Therefore, I intend to offer this Native American health bill as an amendment to any national health care reform bill considered on the Senate floor.

I want to thank all the Native American health advocates who assisted us in the development of this crucial piece of legislation. The Federal Government signed the dotted lines years ago, and today, we make an important step towards finally fulfilling those obligations.

Mr. President, is there an order in the unanimous consent request?

I believe the Senator from Oklahoma has been allotted 10 minutes. I saw him just walk through the Chamber a moment ago. The ranking member of the subcommittee, the Senator from Utah, is allotted 5 minutes. Let me reserve my time and perhaps ask the Senator from Utah to begin, and then we hope the Senator from Oklahoma would return and use his 10 minutes.

Mr. President, the unanimous consent agreement provides I will have the final 5 minutes of debate. If the Senator from Oklahoma wishes to consume the remainder of his time, I will use the final 5 minutes and then we will proceed.

Mr. President, I think I speak for myself and Senator Bennett, we very much appreciate the work the Senator from Oklahoma does. He does it diligently. He is on the floor a great deal pushing his views on these issues. On the specific issue that he just described, it is an issue in which he came to the floor and offered it. We included it in the bill during the Senate floor consideration because we believed in it. We agreed with him, as did others in the Senate, and that is what we took to conference.

The Senator from Oklahoma weaves a bit of a larger cloud than exists by suggesting there was some sort of deep secrets or conspiratorial approach to try to prevent the public from seeing something. That is far from the case. The Senator makes a point that we agreed with by accepting his amendment. That is, reports required of the Department of Energy to be sent to the Congress should be available not only to Congress but to the American people. We agreed with that point. That is why we put it in the Senate bill. We went to conference with the House. There was objection. The fact is, this is a very big piece of legislation. If we decided that if we can't resolve an objection or if we can't reach agreement on everything, then there won't be a conference report. If that were the case, there would be very few conference reports on the floor of the Senate.

As my colleagues from Oklahoma and Utah know, there is a lot of give and take in the conference process. This is a piece of legislation that has some $30 billion-plus on a wide range of issues such as nuclear weapons. This bill also funds nuclear weapons programs, water programs for both the Army Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation, energy programs, nuclear waste cleanup sites and many more complicated and important issues. In order to get a conference report, we had to give and take here and there, and there was an objection to the provision the Senator from Oklahoma had put in the Senate bill. I regret that, but that was the case. As my colleague from Utah described previously, I will continue to support the Senator from Oklahoma's efforts to make sure all of these reports are made available to the American people, providing that there is no national security issue or secret clearance to them.

I emphasize something my colleague from Oklahoma described about this. This conference report on energy and water is an important conference report. We need to get our bills done on time. Aside from the fact that it does not include his amendment, which we had previously supported and still do, we need to do our work. There is a lot of criticism about not passing appropriations bills. We will pass appropriations bills this year in great contrast to years previous when there have been big omnibus bills. That is a good thing, that we are making progress to pass individual appropriations bills. We brought this bill to the floor for debate. Amendments were offered, and the bill was passed. That is exactly the way the process should work.

Senator Bennett and I brought a bill to the floor that is slightly less than 1 percent above last year's expenditures for water and energy and so on. The Senator from Oklahoma acknowledged at the beginning of his remarks that

this bill, with respect to the fiscal year 2010, is not a bill that unnecessarily throws a lot of money at programs and projects. We are less than 1 percent above last year's expenditures. That is important to note.

With respect to the many programs in the bill, there are many that are flat funded. Some are even slightly below fiscal year 2009. The exception is in three areas where there were increases. The first area of increase was for energy efficiency and renewable energy programs because we are trying to make sure we move down the road more aggressively to attain a lower carbon future and promote greater efficiency. Second, the DOE's Science program represents an investment that will provide significant dividends in the future. Our great science laboratories and other investments in science represent a profoundly important investment in our nation. Finally, naval reactors had an increase. We put some additional money there because of the importance of this program. The rest of the programs are very near their fiscal year 2009 levels with no increase at all.

This is a good conference report. I don't believe it is inappropriate for my colleague from Oklahoma to be upset that his amendment is not a part of the report. I understand his position. He has served in the House and Senate. He understands there are many things in conference that get dropped. Yet, for everything that is dropped, there was someone in the House or Senate who believed it was important enough to come to the floor, offer it, fight for it, and passionately believe in it. I understand that is true with everything. It is certainly true for our colleague from Oklahoma who spends a lot of time pushing for increased transparency. We appreciate that. That is why we agreed to the amendment during the Senate debate.

This Energy and Water Appropriations bill is an important piece of legislation. It does not contain the one amendment the Senator from Oklahoma got put in the Senate side. We wish it did, but it does not. But the conference report is nonetheless something that merits the support of the broad membership in the Senate.

I yield the floor.

Cloture Motion

Mr. President, let me thank my colleagues who voted for cloture for the Energy and Water Appropriations conference report. It is important that we do the appropriations bills and get them done individually. We are now past October 1, but in the last 2 years, we actually had to do omnibus appropriations bills. Thanks to Senator Reid and his determination and thanks to Senator Inouye, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, we are doing the bills one by one by one, and we are going to get them finished. We just voted on the bill that funds all of the energy and water programs in the country, and it is a very important investment in this country.

I wanted to comment more generally about a few issues. The legislation we are moving, the conference report, just got cloture. We got it through the House and the Senate and now we are in a period of 30 hours post-cloture. Hopefully, we will then get it to the President for his signature for it to become law. The concerns I have about the issues here include not just the water infrastructure and nuclear weapons programs in our Energy and Water bill but also very much include energy.

I wish to speak for a moment about the energy challenges we face. This chart describes a very serious dilemma for our country. Two-thirds of the crude oil used in the United States today is imported. Two- thirds of the crude oil we use comes from other countries, some of whom don't like us very much. Our economy runs on energy. If, God forbid, tomorrow the supply of oil to this country were interrupted by terrorists or for some other reason, our economy would be in desperate trouble. Every single day the American people get up and use energy but take it for granted. We get out of bed, and we turn a switch on. We assume the lights will be on. We perhaps plug in an electric razor or toothbrush and expect there to be electricity to run that razor or toothbrush. We take a shower and expect the water heater to have been heated with electricity or natural gas to provide the hot water for a shower. Then we make coffee and breakfast, and there is electricity assumed to be available. Further, we put a key in the ignition of a vehicle and drive off to work, using energy once again.

Every part of our daily life is filled with the use of energy. The question is, How can we address this issue of our unbelievable reliance on foreign oil? It threatens our national security and our energy security to be so reliant on foreign oil. The reliance we have has to be reduced. So how do we do that? Even as we do that, we must also find a way to reduce the carbon footprint and reduce the amount of CO2 that goes into the atmosphere to protect the planet. So two things are working at the same time.

I wish to talk for a bit more about the legislation we have finished in the Senate Energy Committee, rather than the Energy and Water Appropriations panel which I chair. Senator Bingaman chairs the Energy Committee, and I am the second ranking Democrat on that authorizing committee. I wish to talk about what we have written in the energy authorizing bill in the context with efforts that some have described

to merge that energy bill with a cap-and-trade climate change bill and bring both to the floor for a debate. I prefer we not do that approach. Not because I don't think we should address climate change; I believe we should have that debate too. I believe we are going to have to have a lower carbon future. What I believe we should do is a two-step process that focuses on energy legislation. From a policy standpoint, it would give us a real opportunity to reduce carbon in the atmosphere by changing our energy mix. First by using more renewable energy, and second by finding ways, through greater investments in research and technology, to reduce the carbon emitted when we burn fossil fuels to produce energy. So I have a couple of comments about this two-step approach.

The Energy bill we have enacted provides a lot of things. It provides a substantial increase in renewable energy, and it does that through wind turbines which create electricity from the wind. There is no carbon output with wind energy. The problem is that we have a lot of wind in remote areas, and we need to move it to the load centers that need the electricity. It's well known that there is wind from Texas to North Dakota. By the way, North Dakota ranks No. 1 in wind; we are the Saudi Arabia in wind. We also have a substantial opportunity to develop solar from Texas across the Southwest to California where the sun shines all the time, or virtually all the time. We can maximize the production of energy where it is available from wind, solar, biomass and so on, and then we can build the transmission capability to move it to the load centers that need it. By doing this, you will dramatically change our energy capability in this country.

The legislation we have done in the Energy Committee accomplishes that goal. We have a significant transmission piece in that legislation that allows us, at long last, to build the transmission capacity we need to support our renewable potential.

We built an Interstate Highway System around this country so you can get in a vehicle and drive almost anywhere, but we have not built an interstate highway of transmission to move energy from where it exists to where it is needed. We have a patchwork of transmission that was built up over a period of time when there was a local utility that produced energy for a certain market and then in that area distributed energy to its market. That is the kind of transmission system we have. We need to dramatically modernize the transmission so we can maximize the amount of renewable energy.

There are a lot of things happening that I think are exciting in energy that can change our future. Do you know right now there are a couple hundred people working on a process to find innovative ways to use coal. Dr. Craig Venter is involved. He is one of the great scientists in our country and one of the two people who led the human genome project. They are working on finding ways to create synthetic microbes that would actually consume a coal in deep seams and turn the coal into methane. Think of that. It creates synthetic microbes that will essentially eat the coal--that is not a scientific term--they will consume the coal and leave in its wake methane, turning coal into methane.

We have others who are working on the development of algae and energy, and Dr. Venter is involved in this as well. By the way, after 15 years of it being discontinued, I restarted the algae research at the DOE energy laboratories through my Energy and Water Subcommittee. Dr. Venter is working on developing strains of algae that will excrete lipids that become a fuel. We know we can grow algae in water and sunlight and CO2 and then get rid of CO2 by growing algae and then destroy the algae by harvesting it and creating diesel fuel. Dr. Venter is looking at ways to produce algae that simply excrete the lipids and, with little transformation, becomes a fuel. We have so many things going on that are so interesting. I think 10 years from now we will look in the rearview mirror and see dramatic changes in how we produce energy and how we significantly reduce carbon.

I wish to show a map of my State in which we have some projects that are extraordinary. The western half of North Dakota has substantial oil development. The USGS determined that it was the largest discovery of technically recoverable oil that has yet been assessed in the lower 48 States. They estimated that there was as much as 4.3 billion barrels of oil in this region known as the Bakken formation. We also have a substantial amount of coal, lignite coal. We have one of the largest commercial working example of CO2 sequestration by capturing the CO2 from a synthetic gas plant, putting it in a pipeline, and sending it up to Saskatchewan where they inject it underground for enhanced oil recovery. By doing this, it improves the productivity of marginal oil wells in Saskatchewan. So we actually capture the CO2 from the North Dakota plant that is gasifying coal and gas, ship it up to Canada, and then inject it underground in an enhanced oil recovery process. In my judgment, that is a very exciting thing.

Here are the fuels we use for the production of electricity. About forty-eight percent of our electricity comes from coal. Nuclear provides a smaller piece than that need. We have natural gas, hydroelectric, and other renewables too. So my point is we are not going to have a future without using coal for some period of time. The question is how do we use it in a different way. I believe a substantial investment in technology that will allow us to build near- zero emission coal-fired plants. I believe we can do that by capturing carbon and protecting our environment. We must maximize the use of renewables from wind, solar, biomass, and other sources. We must also move toward an electric drive transportation system, and then continue to invest in a longer term hydrogen fuel cell system. We need to do all of these things are what we can and should do.

The Energy bill we passed out of the Energy Committee is a giant step forward to maximize renewables and increase energy efficiency as a way to reduce carbon. I think what we ought to do is bring that energy bill to the floor, have a debate, get it to the President for his signature. This would be a giant step in the direction of climate change. Following that, we should bring the climate change bill to the floor and then address the issue of targets and timetables and other mechanisms to find out what is achievable for protecting this country. Some have heard me speak about this and have said, Well, he doesn't support any sort of climate change legislation. What I have said is I don't support cap and ``trade.'' At this point, I have said I don't support providing a $1 trillion carbon securities market for Wall Street so that speculators and the investment banks can trade carbon securities tomorrow and tell us what our price of energy is going to be for us the next day. I have precious little faith in those same people who ran up the price of oil last year to $147 a barrel in day trading when the market fundamentals showed that demand was down and supply was up. So, no, I don't support the trade side using that mechanism, but I do support creating climate change legislation that has appropriate targets and timetables that reduce our nation's carbon footprint. We can do that. We will do that. I think there is general consensus we should do that.

All I am saying is this: What we ought to do is bring to the floor energy legislation that will adopt the policies on maximizing renewables, building the transmission capability, creating the building efficiencies and much more that is and important step forward and the lowest hanging fruit in energy. Among these positive benefits, energy efficiency is the lowest hanging fruit by far that costs the least to retrofit America's buildings and homes. We should do all of that in the Energy bill that has now been waiting for some months. I have spoken to the majority leader who has been a terrific advocate for sound and thoughtful energy policies. I have also talked to the President directly about this. It is not that I don't want to do climate change because I know my colleagues are working hard on it. It is the fact that I want to make progress in energy policy first that can change our fuel mix and develop a lower carbon future. Because we have done that work in the Energy Committee, we have taken an important step. We can then bring a climate change bill to the floor after that which I know is controversial, but that

we can work on developing targets and timetables for that lower carbon future. I think this is something we should do and I think we can do. I think it would, in my judgment, be the best fit for this country's future energy policy and for the policy that is necessary to lower the future CO2 emissions into the atmosphere and protect the environment.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

If the Senator will yield for a question, I held a hearing on the beneficial use of carbon. A scientist at Sandia National Laboratory said: Think of carbon not just as a problem but an opportunity.

In this case, when you talk of algae, it is single-cell pond scum, a green slime you find on top of wastewater, right? The fact is, you can feed CO2 to algae and produce something from it that extends our fuel supply. It is exactly the kind of thing that makes sense.

There are other beneficial uses of carbon as well. If we change our way of thinking a bit, we all have the same goal, which is to protect our planet. We can find other ways of maximizing the use of renewables and to reduce carbon by using it for enhanced oil recovery and producing additional fuel by growing algae.

I thank the Senator.

Mr. President, my understanding is that we are now in what is called a 30-hour postcloture period. We had a cloture vote this morning on the energy and water conference report. I chair the committee that brought that to the floor, the subcommittee on appropriations which funds the water projects, the energy projects, the nuclear weapons, among other things. It is a very important piece of legislation. We could not just bring it to the floor from conference. We actually had to file cloture, wait for the cloture petition to ripen--2 days--then we have a vote. I think we had 79 votes in favor of it. And now we are in a period where we can't yet adopt it because some are insisting we have the 30 hours postcloture expire. My hope is that whoever feels that way might relent so that later this afternoon we can pass this piece of legislation.

But this legislation is very much like almost everything else we are trying to do in appropriations. We have tried very hard to do the appropriations bills as we are supposed to do them--one at a time, bring them to the floor, have votes, debate the amendments, and so on. In the last couple of years, in my judgment, the appropriations process has been a failure because we have had to do omnibus bills, which is not the right way to do it. We were forced to do that, in many respects. But now we are trying to do one bill at a time, and we have done many of them. Credit goes to the majority leader, who has said we want to finish the individual appropriations bills. But the fact is, we are getting almost no cooperation--almost none.

I think we have had a relatively noncontroversial Legislative Branch appropriations bill, which is generally pretty noncontroversial. As I recall, I believe we had to file a cloture petition to shut off debate on the motion to proceed--not the bill, just the motion to proceed to the bill. That takes 2 days to ripen, then you have 30 hours postcloture.

Virtually every step of the way, we have had this problem, with no cooperation at all. It is like trying to ride a bicycle built for two uphill and the person on the backseat has their foot on the brakes. That is what is happening around here all the time. All we would like is just a little cooperation so we can get these bills completed.

When we bring a conference bill to the floor, it shouldn't take us 2 to 3 days. The bill I brought to the floor myself, the Energy and Water bill, took us a fair amount of time. We sat on the floor waiting for people to come and offer amendments. They didn't. That is why I sometimes refer to the Senate as 100 bad habits. It is not very easy to get people to come over, even when they have amendments to offer. And then from time to time somebody comes over and has an amendment that has nothing to do with the subject, which is fine--the rules allow that--but then they insist they have a vote on their specific two or three or four amendments or they will hold everything up forever.

So we are getting no cooperation, and it would be nice to get just some so we can get the appropriations bills done. It is the right way to do it--bring the bills to the floor, do them, debate them, and have votes on them. That is the way the Senate should work. Lord knows we have tried this year to do that, but we have had almost no cooperation. At every turn, we have had people stand up and say: Well, I have my four amendments, but, no, I am not going to come over and offer them. I am going to tell you I have four amendments to offer, and if you try to shut this down and shut off amendments, then we will filibuster and we won't give you the 60 votes you need to shut it off. So there you are, stuck in the middle, unable to get things done.

Again, the cloture vote yesterday failed on Commerce-State-Justice. Normally speaking, Senator Mikulski would bring a bill like that to the floor of the Senate and it would be on the floor maybe 1 day, maybe 2 days. Instead, I watched last week as she was out here waiting for people to offer amendments--sitting here waiting, and no one was coming to offer amendments, by and large. Then the majority leader sat here until I think 9:30 or 10 o'clock at night one evening trying to reach an agreement, and no agreement was forthcoming.

My only point is that it would be nice if we could get some cooperation and some understanding. It is not Republican or Democrat or conservative or liberal to do the work on time and finish our appropriations bills with some amount of cooperation; it is just common sense. If we could just get a bit of that cooperation, we could get the work done around here.

I did want to mention as well, with respect to the agenda, that while we are trying to get these appropriations bills done, we will also begin the process of debating health care on the floor of the Senate--a health care bill that will be brought to the floor reasonably soon. I want to mention that certainly one of the efforts I will make when the health care bill comes to the floor--and I have mentioned this before-- is to try to address the issue of the expanding cost of prescription drugs. That is not dealt with in the legislation which is coming to the floor, I assume, and if not, then there are 30 of us, Republicans and Democrats, who have legislation that will give the American people the freedom to import FDA-approved drugs sold at a fraction of the price elsewhere. That will be one of the amendments I and many others will come to the floor to offer.

Another amendment I intend to offer is a piece of legislation called the Indian Health Care Improvement Act. We passed that through the Senate last year. We have modified it just a bit this year, and I believe we will reintroduce it later this afternoon.

The Indian Health Care Improvement Act has not been reauthorized for a long time. I believe it has been 17 years since the Senate last dealt with Indian health care--an authorization bill--except for last year when we failed because one of our colleagues, who previously spoke, offered an abortion amendment that had the effect of stopping the bill when it got to the House of Representatives.

Having said all that, I intend to offer the Indian health care legislation as an amendment to the broader health care bill because I don't think we should go on to pass a health care reform bill if we don't address the health care obligations we have made to the first Americans, the American Indians. The fact is, American Indians were promised by treaty--were promised time and time again and in treaties the Federal Government signed--that we would provide for their health care, and we have not met those promises. We have both a trust responsibility and a treaty responsibility to fix the health care system for American Indians. It has not been fixed, and it would be a tragedy if we moved forward with health care and didn't include the important part that is required by us to reauthorize the Indian Health Care Improvement Act. So I intend to offer that as well.

I also want to say that when we get health care completed--and I spoke

earlier today about the need to bring up the Energy bill, but there is another bill that is very important that I have spent a lot of time on that has to be considered by the Senate and the entire Congress. That is the FAA reauthorization bill.

The Federal Aviation Administration reauthorization bill is critically important. It has a wide range of issues dealing with safety in the skies, and it has the important provisions dealing with modernizing our air transportation system--our air traffic control system, I should say--and that modernization can't wait. We have to move forward, and it requires a lot of things.

Senator Rockefeller and I have brought a bill out of the Commerce Committee that is ready for floor action, but we need to get it to the floor of the Senate and get it passed so we can get it into conference with the House of Representatives. If I might, I want to describe for a moment why this is important.

We have the skies full of airplanes. I know the carriers have shrunk their size by 8 or 10 percent in terms of commercial carriers, but nonetheless we have the skies full of airplanes flying around transporting people and cargo, and the fact is, we are still flying to what is called ground-based radar. What happens is, we put an airplane in the air someplace with a couple hundred people on board, and it flies around being guided by ground-based radar. Of course, that is better than the old days, when in order to haul the mail at night, in the early days of airplanes, they first used bonfires every so many miles so that you could fly to a bonfire and see where you were headed. That was the only way you could fly at night. The second thing they did was to use flashing lights, and now, of course, ground-based radar for many decades. But ground-based radar is clearly obsolete, and it only tells someone where an airplane was just for a nanosecond.

The transponder on the airplane being shown on a tube someplace or by a monitor somewhere in the air traffic control center shows, when the arc goes around on the radar, where that jet airplane was. Then for the next 6 or 7 seconds, as it is going around again, that jet airplane is someplace else because it is traveling very fast. It only tells you about where the airplane is and only tells you exactly where it was for a nanosecond.

The fact is, we need to go to a GPS system so we can save money, use more direct routing, make it safer for passengers, and use less energy. You also don't have to space the planes as far apart because you know exactly where an airplane is, not where it was.

We need to move on this newer technology. Europe is moving to it, and many other countries. But it is complicated, and it requires us to pass legislation that includes the modernization of the air traffic control system. Again, we brought that out of the Commerce Committee, and it is awaiting action on the floor of the full Senate.

I hope that following health care and following a number of other issues--including, I hope, an energy bill at some point--the FAA reauthorization bill will have its day on the floor of the Senate. I also hope we will have substantial cooperation. I know Senator Hutchison from Texas worked with us, Senator DeMint worked with us to bring that out of the Commerce Committee, and I look forward to having that as part of the agenda so that all of those who have worked for a long time on these issues dealing with safety in the skies and dealing with modernizing our air traffic control system will be able to feel as if we have made progress and have been able to get this bill to conference with the House.

Mr. President, I know the majority leader has a lot to try to plan for the agenda now as we near the end of the year, and these are big, difficult issues. I want to help him, as do most of my colleagues. We are going to need a little cooperation here and there. If we continue to have to vote on cloture petitions, on motions to proceed, it means every single thing we bring to the floor of the Senate takes a week just to get up. Cloture petitions take a couple of days to ripen, then there is 30 hours postcloture. All we need is a little cooperation. That ought not be too much to ask in order to get the business of the Senate done.

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

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

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

Mr. President, let me spend a few moments talking about this issue of reimportation of prescription drugs and the history of it and the work many of us have done together, a large group of Members of the Senate, including Senator McCain, working on this issue.

Senator McCain has offered an amendment, No. 2629, which he has just finished discussing. As I understand the amendment, it would prohibit the use of funds appropriated under the act for preventing individuals, wholesalers, or pharmacists from importing certain prescription drugs. That is in the title. It does have, as I think Senator McCain suggested, perhaps a point of order against it. I do not know whether it is because it would be legislating on an appropriations bill. In any event, whatever the circumstances with this amendment, I was a bit surprised to see this amendment on this bill, but everybody has a right to offer amendments.

Let me say that Senator McCain is a part of a group of us who have worked together. We have worked on a piece of legislation called the Dorgan-Snowe legislation. Senator Snowe, as the major cosponsor, and many others, including Senator McCain as a cosponsor, have worked on this issue for a long time. The fact is, the appropriate place to address this, in my judgment, is in the health care bill that is going to come to the floor in the next couple of weeks. I have said previously that I fully intend to offer this bipartisan bill as an amendment. We have over 30 cosponsors in the Senate, Republicans and Democrats. It ranges from the late Senator Ted Kennedy, to John McCain and a wide range of Senators on both sides of the political aisle. That has been the support for legislation that I think addresses a very important issue.

Let me describe the issue, if I might. I have in my desk in the Senate two bottles that contain medicine. Actually, these are empty bottles. This is Lipitor. The medicine that would be contained in these bottles is made in Ireland by a company that produces Lipitor. It is the most popular cholesterol-lowering drug in America by far. It is made in Ireland, in a plant that is inspected by the FDA, and the medicine is then sent all around the world. These two bottles, as you can see, are identical. These two bottles contained identical tablets, 20 milligrams of Lipitor made in the same place, so it is the same manufacturing, the same pill, put in the same bottle, made by the same company. The difference? One is shipped to Canada, one is shipped to the United States. Difference? Price. Here is the one that was shipped to Canada; this is $1.83 per tablet. This was sent to the United States, $4.48 per tablet. The only difference is price. Why is that the case? Because the American people are charged the highest prices for brand-name prescription drugs in the world, the highest prices in the world for brand-name drugs. In this case, we paid $4.48 per tablet; someone else paid $1.83. It doesn't matter whether it is Canada. It could be England, Italy, France, Germany, Spain--we pay the highest prices in the world, and it is unfair.

The question is not, Is there a problem? Of course there is a problem. We have a whole lot of folks in this country who cannot figure out how they are going to afford to pay for their groceries and their medicine, so they go get their medicine first at the pharmacy in the grocery store and figure out how much they can eat later. Of course this is a problem.

I have described the guy who sat on a straw bale once at a farm a while back, 80 years old, who told me in a little meeting we had in a farmyard: My wife has fought breast cancer for 3 years. She is in her seventies. And we have spent all of those 3 years driving to Canada to try to buy Tamoxifen where it is sold for 80 percent less--an 80 percent lower price in Canada for the identical prescription drug. So my wife and I are trying to drive up and get Tamoxifen in Canada.

The reason they can do that is, apparently at the border, a small amount of personal use, up to 30 days or 60 or 90 days personal use of prescription drugs will be allowed to be brought over without a hassle.

But the question is what about the rest of the American people who cannot drive to the border or go to another country and access the same prescription drugs, same pill put in the same bottle by the same company who decided to charge the American people the highest prices in the world? What about those people?

My point is this: We are going to have a big health care bill on the floor of the Senate sometime in the next few weeks. Oh, it has been through this committee and that committee. It has been on a long, tortured trail. Lord knows every single day in the press we read the next little news item about who said what about this.

One way or another we are going to have some kind of health care reform on the floor of the Senate. Will it pass? Will it be omnibus? Will it be comprehensive? I do not know any of those things. I do know this: that the Gang of 6 and the gang in the Finance Committee or the gang in the HELP Committee are going to become a Gang of 100 or 100 gangs of 1 when it gets to the floor of the Senate. Everybody is going to have their amendments because most Members of the Senate have not had an opportunity to weigh in on health care at this point with their own views and their own amendments. They are not on the committee, not part of a small gang. Let me say, on behalf of myself and I think Senator Snowe, it is the Snowe-Dorgan legislation with respect to prescription drug reimportation, which includes Senator McCain as a cosponsor, that when health care comes to the floor of this Senate, you can count on it, that there is going to be an amendment and there is going to be a vote on the issue of the prices of prescription drugs.

Perhaps there are some people who do not want it. I understand they do not want to have a vote on it. But in my judgment, there cannot be credible efforts to address health care if you do not address the issue of health care costs, the relentless rising cost of health care.

Part of that, not an insignificant part, relates to the question of the relentless runup of prescription drug costs every single year. Take a look at the increased prices for prescription drugs every year and then think about the people out there who are trying to figure out: How do I pay for this?

I understand senior citizens have the opportunity, under Part D of Medicare, to have some drug coverage. I understand there is a problem with that, there is what is called a doughnut hole in the Washington lexicon. I also understand that someone made a deal with the pharmaceutical industry for $80 billion over 10 years, which is a relatively small part of their gross revenues, in order to fill part of the doughnut hole with 50 percent off on brand-name drugs.

I understand all that. I was not a part of it, nor was anybody I know of in this Chamber. The question is, What about all the rest of the American people and the fact that they are now charged the highest prices in the world for brand-name prescription drugs? Is it fair? I say no.

We will offer an amendment. My colleague says he was promised and he was concerned about that. I understand all that. All I am saying is, we are going to have this debate, this amendment, and this vote. It is going to be on health care. That is where it ought to be. It ought to be on the health care bill.

I know that when we have this discussion, we are going to have people say: If you do not allow the prescription drug folks, the pharmaceutical industry, to charge these prices in our country, they will do less research into finding cures for these deadly diseases.

You know what, the fact is they spend more money on promotion, marketing, and advertising than they do on research. That is a fact. I mean you get up in the morning and turn the television set on, perhaps while you are brushing your teeth or something, and then listen to the ads. The ads push at you every single day: Go ask your doctor today. It is Wednesday. Ask your doctor, is the purple pill right for you?

I do not know what the purple pill is, but it makes you feel like you should go ask somebody if I should be taking the purple pill.

Go ask your doctor whether you might need Flomax. Go ask your doctor what you ought to be getting, what you ought to be taking that you now do not know about or are not taking.

All these things are pushed at consumers in circumstances where the only person who can prescribe that prescription drug is a doctor who has decided you need it for your health. Yet every single day, relentlessly across this country on television, in the journals and newspapers and publications it says: Go check with your doctor. Ask your doctor if you should be taking this medicine.

What about cutting back on some of that and reducing the price of prescription drugs? What about that? Let me make one other point, if I might. My colleague indicated he has offered this, which is a funding limitation on prescription drugs. The fact is, this has been a long and difficult trail to pass legislation.

I understand. Were I working for the pharmaceutical industry, I would understand why you want to retain this little piece in Federal law that says: The only entity that can reimport or import drugs into this country is the company that manufacturers them. I understand why they want that to be the case. Because it allows them to price, in this country, however they want to price.

But we are told constantly this is a new economy, a global economy. If it is a global economy, then what about allowing the American people the freedom to access that global economy to find the identical FDA- approved prescription drug where it is sold for half the price?

They say: Yes, but you know what, if we do that, we are going to open it up to counterfeit drugs and so on. Guess what. Europe has been doing this for 20 years. It is something called parallel trading. In Europe, if you are in Germany and want to buy a prescription drug from France, if you are in Spain and want to buy a prescription drug from England, that is not a problem. They have a plan that is called parallel trading. It has been going on for 20 years, and there are no counterfeit issues of any significance at all.

Europe can do it and we cannot? We cannot keep track of this? The legislation that I and Senator Snowe and many others, including Senator McCain, have put together carefully has all kinds of safety measures that will dramatically improve the safety of the prescription drugs that are now sold.

It requires pedigrees be established on batch lots so you can track everything back. Everything. The only proposal we are suggesting the American people be given the freedom to do is to access that FDA- approved drug--yes, only FDA-approved drugs--only from countries in which the chain of custody is identical to ours and as safe as ours is. That is all we are talking about.

But that does it the right way. That says: Here is a plan. It funds the FDA to make certain that the drug supplies are safe and so on. This is the right way to do this. That is why we have taken a long time to put this together. It is a piece of legislation that has all the elements you would want to have that gives the American people the freedom to get lower priced drugs, FDA-approved drugs where they are sold and, at the same time, because they would have that freedom, would put downward pressure on drug prices in this country because the pharmaceutical industry would be required to reprice their drugs in the United States.

Let me say, as I always have to say, I do not have a grief against the pharmaceutical industry. I think it is a great industry. I think it produces wonderful, miracle prescription drugs that if taken can keep you out of an acute care hospital bed, which would be far more expensive. Prescription drugs, if taken, in many cases, can manage a disease that otherwise would have you in a debilitated condition.

I appreciate the research they do. I appreciate the new drugs they develop. Let me say this, that a substantial amount of work, with respect to the development of new drugs, is done with public funding, taxpayer dollars, through the National Institutes of Health, the knowledge from which then goes to the pharmaceutical industry to be able to use to create these drugs. That is a part of it.

Another part of it is the research they do themselves. Good for you, I say. My grief is not against an industry. I do not want to tarnish this industry. All I want to say is: We deserve fair prices. This country and the consumers in this country deserve fair prices.

We have been trying for 10 years to get this done. If we bring health care reform to the floor of the Senate and say: We are going to do something about health care costs and prices and fail to do something about prescription drug costs, in which the American people are required to pay the highest prices for brand-name drugs, then, in my judgment, we will have failed miserably.

It is my full intention that when we have health care on the floor, which I expect to be within a week or 2 weeks or whenever it comes, but it is coming for sure, I will be here, and I will fully expect and demand the opportunity to offer this amendment because there are 30 Members of the Senate, Republicans and Democrats alike, who have done the work to put together the bill that has all the safeguards and, finally, at long last, will give the American people what they deserve; that is, fair pricing on prescription drugs.

Of course, I will yield.

Let me say to Senator McCain that I expect the job of majority leader is a pretty tough job. I have watched from Bob Dole on, Tom Daschle, and so many majority leaders and minority leaders try to run this place. It is pretty hard to run. Trying to figure out a schedule is pretty difficult. So I respect the difficulties of juggling all these things.

With respect to the specific letter Senator McCain referred to, Senator McCain, I, and Senator Snowe all talked to the majority leader about this issue when the tobacco bill was on the floor of the Senate because we were fully intending to offer our prescription drug reimportation bill.

The majority leader did say to us, and then put it in writing, did say to us: I will guarantee you that you will get that up on the floor of the Senate. So that was a commitment by the majority leader. And he understands that commitment.

When I saw the letter he wrote, I went to him immediately, and he and I talked about that. Because I indicated to the majority leader: You have indicated that as soon as practicable, or perhaps at the end of the year.

I said to the majority leader: You should understand that if it is not up before health care, it has to be offered on health care. Because that is exactly where it fits. Nobody can come to the floor and say: We have to do health care. We have to try and control costs and put some downward pressure on prices. But, by the way, you cannot offer a piece of legislation that would put downward pressure on prescription drug prices. I said: That cannot be the case.

He understood and said: I understand that. That is going to be at the front end of this debate on health care. Based on that representation, I feel confident, I would say to Senator McCain, I understand the confusion in the reading of the letter, the writing of the letter, but I feel confident, having talked to Senator Reid, that we are going to have ample opportunity, right at the front end of this debate about health care, to have a full debate, to have a vote up or down, which is what we need to do, obviously. I think everyone in this Chamber, every Republican, every Democrat, needs to be on record: How do they feel about their consumers paying the highest prices for prescription drugs in the world? How do they feel about a bill we put together that has pedigrees and batch lots, all the safety so our consumers can have the freedom to access these lower priced drugs?

I think we can do that.

Mr. President, I understand the anxious state of all of us to do what we have worked on for so long. I understand. I also understand that the letter probably could have been more artfully drawn. I understand from my conversations with Senator Reid, the majority leader, that he fully understands and expects us to be planted on the floor when health care comes here and to offer our amendment and have a full debate and vote. If there is an attempt when we debate health care to decide that 30 of us Republicans and Democrats somehow don't have the opportunity we have been promised on the issue of prescription drug prices, in my judgment they are going to have an awful time getting any health care bill through this place. Because you can't say to me or to anybody else: We will do the bill we want to do and, by the way, prescription drug prices that are going up by double digits, we are not going to give you a shot at that.

Let me make one final representation. I said when I started, it is hard to schedule this place. I understand that. The Senator from Arizona knows we have had noncontroversial bills where we couldn't even get past a motion to proceed without having a filibuster to something that is noncontroversial. If I am majority leader, I am thinking this is not easy to do. I am sympathetic to the job he has to try to do all these things. I am convinced Senator Reid will keep the commitment he made to us. I am convinced that commitment will be kept when we get health care on the floor. I don't want it to be in the middle or toward the end. I want to be here front and center at the front end because the bill we have put together is a strong bill dealing with a very important issue.

I am happy to yield.

Mr. President, I believe that commitment has already been made by the majority leader.

I understand that. That is why I said I think the letter perhaps is not artfully drafted with respect to that last paragraph. I believe that commitment has been made to me because I went to the majority leader following the release of that letter. I have found over a long period that when the majority leader gives me a commitment, I believe he will keep the commitment.

I understand, but I believe the Senator will have that experience when health care comes to the floor and he and I are on the floor with our colleague Senator Snowe and others pushing for a solid piece of legislation that has broad bipartisan support. The Senator then will understand the commitment was made and the commitment was kept. I believe that will be the case.

I believe that commitment has been made to me. In any event, we are here on the floor on a Wednesday talking about something I believe is very important, and we have worked on this for a long time. We have spent a lot of time working on it. I don't intend to decide: OK, somebody is going to put up some barriers and that is OK with me. That is all right. And I don't think Senator Reid is going to do that. He has made a commitment to me that will not be the case. I am convinced that Senator McCain and I and others who have put this legislation together will have our day, and everybody else will have to stand up and say yes or no. I hope when the roll is called, we have sufficient numbers, finally, at long last, to pass legislation that should have been passed 8 years ago. Again, I appreciate the comments Senator McCain has made this morning. I will have further visits with him.

I know Senator Mikulski has a bill on the floor she wishes to manage, and we don't want to be in the way of that.

My view is that we are going to have our bill on this floor with a full debate and an up-or-down vote, and that will come as a result of Senator Reid keeping his commitment. I am convinced of that.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I intend to offer several amendments to the health care bill. I have not had a chance. I am not part of a gang of anything. I wasn't part of the Gang of 6. I am not part of the Finance or HELP Committees. This is my first opportunity. I have some things I think can improve it. If a bill comes to the floor with procedures--and it will not happen--that lock this up and we can't offer amendments, I wouldn't stand for that. I am not going to be a part of that process. My expectation and the representation made to me with respect to this amendment is when that bill comes to the floor, we will have an opportunity to offer amendments. I don't know how you would get health care through the Senate if the proposition would be that somebody says: The Gang of 6, they had their 6 months or 3 months, whatever they did. And the two committees had their opportunity. But the rest of you, sorry, can't do that. In that circumstance, health care would not be passed through the Senate. Perhaps we have tortured this subject to death.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on October 7, 2009 at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Securitization of Assets: Problems and Solutions.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on October 7, 2009, at 10 a.m., to hold a hearing entitled ``The Proposed U.S.-UAE Agreement on Civilian Nuclear Cooperation.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on October 7, 2009, at 10 a.m., to hold a hearing entitled ``Confronting al-Qaeda: The Challenge Today and Tomorrow.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet during the sessions of the Senate on October 7, 2009, at 10 a.m. in room SD- 430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on October 7, 2009, at 10 a.m. in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Workplace Fairness: Has the Supreme Court Been Misinterpreting Laws Designed to Protect American Workers From Discrimination?''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on October 7, 2009, at 4 p.m. in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Nominations.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on October 7, 2009, at 10 a.m., in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

I ask unanimous consent that the following three individuals from Senator Reid's office be granted the privileges of the floor for Thursday, October 8: Lauren Bateman, Caren Street, and Maria Urbina.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the majority leader be authorized to sign any duly enrolled bills and joint resolutions during today's session, Monday, October 5.

Mr. President, last Friday the New York Times had an article which caught my eye, and the headline was the following: ``October New York Philharmonic Trip to Cuba is Off.'' I want to talk for a moment about this. I was extraordinarily disappointed to read this because this is an issue of the freedom to travel by the American people, specifically, the freedom to travel to Cuba.

This country has had an embargo against the country of Cuba for a long while. Cuba is a Communist country. Fidel Castro has poked his finger in the eye of America for a long time, so we have had an embargo for a long time. Part of the way to injure the Castro regime, presumably, as a part of this embargo is to prevent the American people from traveling to Cuba. The American people can travel to Communist China, to Communist Vietnam, to North Korea, but the American people are considered taking a criminal act if they travel to Cuba. There are some exceptions; the U.S. Treasury Department gives licenses to travel for certain kinds of educational and cultural things, and for trade.

So the New York Philharmonic orchestra was going to Cuba, but had to cancel the trip. Daniel Wakin wrote about it in the New York Times last Friday October 1, 2009. The reason I wanted to mention this is because it is almost unbelievable what we are still doing with respect to our travel policy with Cuba.

Senator Enzi and I have a piece of legislation that removes all travel restrictions with respect to travel to Cuba. We have over 30 Senators who are cosponsors of that legislation, but while we are waiting to pass our legislation, we are going through this nonsense of having the Federal Government and the Treasury Department tell us who can and who cannot travel, restricting the liberty and the freedom of the American people. It is outrageous, in my judgment.

Trips like the one the New York Philharmonic planned to Havana are not unusual. These kinds of trips happen all of the time. In 1959, at the height of the Cold War with the Soviet Union, the New York Philharmonic played in Moscow. It is a reasonably good thing, in my judgment, to be able to extend our culture and the hand of friendship through music.

One of the reasons I was especially interested in this is that the New York Philharmonic visited North Korea last year, and I asked conductor Loren Maazel and Zarin Mehta, President of the Philharmonic's board, to come and speak to our caucus. They described to us their performances in North Korea. They said the applause went on and on, even after they left the stage. What a great way to exchange with another country, to extend cultural enlightenment and to share with other countries. Again, the New York Philharmonic orchestra played in North Korea last year, but cannot play in Cuba without a special license.

The New York Philharmonic is going to Communist Vietnam this month.

Yes, it is a Communist country. So, too, is North Korea, as is China, as is Russia. But the New York Philharmonic orchestra has no difficulty being able to play music in those countries because there are no travel restrictions with respect to those countries.

Let me describe, if I might, the absurdity of all of this. The Office of Foreign Assets Control is a little agency in the Treasury Department that is in charge of granting licenses that, under certain conditions, will allow you to travel to Cuba. The license they decided to allow the New York Philharmonic to go to Cuba and play their music did not include allowing the benefactors of the Philharmonic to travel with them and the Philharmonic decided that was unacceptable. Frankly, I understand why it is unacceptable for them. That doesn't make any sense to me.

The OFAC regulations says

Unless otherwise authorized, any person subject to U.S.

jurisdiction who engages in any travel-related transaction in

Cuba violates the regulations.

That is unbelievable to me. That has been around, I think, for 40 years, 50 years.

Let me give examples of some people who have traveled to Cuba who our Federal Government has chased and harassed. By the way, this little agency called OFAC, somewhere in the bowels of the U.S. Treasury Department, the Office of Foreign Assets Control, is supposed to be tracking terrorist money, protecting us from terrorists. Instead they have been busy chasing people who go to Cuba. In the previous administration, up to a quarter of their time was spent trying to track Americans who were under suspicion of taking a vacation in Cuba. It is pretty absurd, it seems to me.

This is Joan Slote. She was a senior citizen and bicyclist who was fined $7,630. Do you know why? Because she joined a Canadian bicycling group that took a bicycle tour of Cuba and, as a result of that, her government--under the previous administration--tracked her down, threatened to attach her Social Security checks, and fined her $7,630 for riding a bicycle in Cuba.

Here is a picture of a woman I have met named Joni Scott. Joni Scott's transgression? She is a very religious woman, a devout Christian. She went to Cuba to hand out free Bibles on the streets of Cuba and her government tried to track her down and fine her $10,000 for handing out free Bibles on the streets of Cuba because she violated the travel ban. The travel ban, that means restricting the liberty of the American people. We do not ban travel to other countries. We do not do it for communist China, for communist Russia, communist Vietnam-- just for Cuba.

This is SGT Carlos Lazo. A number of years ago, Carlos Lazo went and fought in the country of Iraq, wearing America's uniform. He is a Cuban-American. He was in Iraq as a fighting soldier for this country. He won the Bronze Star for gallantry. He had two children in Cuba, one of whom was sick, and his government that he fought for and won the Bronze Star for, told him he was not able to travel to Cuba to see his own sick child. Hat shows how unbelievably wrong this policy is.

Let me describe what the policy is about traveling to other countries. The rules say:

All transactions ordinarily incident to travel to or from

Iran . . . are permitted.

If you want to go to Iran, no problem; that is not an issue. You are welcome to go to Iran.

If you want to see Kim Jong-il in North Korea, it is not a problem. The rules say:

U.S. passports are valid for travel in North Korea and

individuals do not need U.S. Government permission to travel

there.

Here are the 10 Presidents we have had since we decided to punish the American people with a travel ban to Cuba--10 Presidents. You talk about failure--it is one thing just to fail; it is another thing to insist that failure is a good thing for 50 years. This Government of Cuba has lasted through 10 Presidents. What we have decided to do is, over all these years, to ban travel to Cuba by the American people.

You can go to Cuba in certain capacities. You can go in certain educational capacities, or cultural capacities, provided you get a license. I have been to Cuba. I have been to Havana. I have visited with government officials, I visited with all the dissidents in Cuba. Many of my colleagues here in Congress have undoubtedly traveled to Cuba. But we have a licensing requirement with respect to travel to Cuba.

We also had this trade embargo for all of these years. I was one who, some years ago, lifted that embargo slightly to be able to sell food and medicine into Cuba. I think it is fundamentally immoral to use food as a weapon. We had an embargo against selling food to Cuba. The Europeans were selling into Cuba, the Canadians were selling into Cuba; the American farmers were told you can't sell food into Cuba. As a result of my amendment, the amendment I offered with then Senator Ashcroft, that amendment opened just a bit the sale of food into Cuba and allowed medicine to go into Cuba as well, but that is the only thing that has happened in all of these years.

Senator Enzi and I have offered a bipartisan piece of legislation that would allow travel, allow the American people the freedom to travel in Cuba.

My colleagues in this Chamber talk a lot about freedom. What about the freedom of the American people to travel? Why is it we have decided to punish the Cuban regime by restricting Americans' freedoms?

I come back to the basic proposition. That is, one of the great music groups in the world, the New York Philharmonic, which has played in North Korea, in Russia, and is about to play in Vietnam, is told: Here are the circumstances and conditions in which you can play in Cuba. By the way, they are onerous. The New York Philharmonic found those circumstances and conditions unacceptable and I understand why.

I am writing to the Office of Assets Control to see if we could not get them to think straight a bit. It makes no sense at all to decide that this kind of exchange is unworthy. Does anybody really think that having the New York Philharmonic play beautiful music in the city of Havana, in the country of Cuba, is in any way going to threaten anybody? Wouldn't it perhaps do at least what it did for those who were able to experience that wonderful music in North Korea? I saw the photographs, I saw the video. I believe ``60 Minutes'' did a piece on it, that showed how unbelievably they were responded to by the North Korean people who heard them, who listened to the New York Philharmonic. Wouldn't that be the same with respect to Cuba?

Why on Earth should our government be interpreting this travel restriction in the way that is designed to try to restrict rather than expand these opportunities? I have seen how OFAC, over these years, tries to find ways to tighten, find ways to create opportunity to restrict travel. That makes no sense to me at all.

When I read this, this weekend, I thought what on Earth could they be thinking of? Where is the deep reservoir of common sense that you should expect from people who are confronted with this issue? When confronted with the issue of granting a license to the New York Philharmonic Orchestra to represent our country in doing concerts in Havana, why should OFAC be trying to find ways to make that too restrictive for the Philharmonic and its benefactors to travel to Cuba and do what they had intended to do?

This kind of opportunity to connect with other countries has a long history. I showed a picture of the New York Philharmonic, conducted by Leonard Bernstein, performing in the Great Hall in the Moscow Conservatory. Let me show that again. It raises the question about common sense. If we are able, in 1959, with all of the tensions with Moscow and the Soviet Union at that point, and we sent our New York Philharmonic Orchestra in an exchange and Leonard Bernstein conducted, and they, too, were greeted with long, sustained applause because people were so appreciative of them being in Moscow; if that has been the case--and it has been in every circumstance and last year especially it was with respect to the appearance in North Korea--if that is the case, why on Earth would our Government do anything other than encourage the New York Philharmonic to do the concert in Havana, instead of discourage it, instead of finding ways to tighten

this down so the New York Philharmonic and their benefactors had decided they simply couldn't go under those conditions?

Common sense ought to apply on this issue of the liberty and the freedom of the American people to travel. There ought not be travel restrictions to Cuba at all. They ought to be gone and we ought to pass the Dorgan-Enzi bill that strikes the travel restrictions with respect to Cuba. We have not yet found a way to get it to the floor. When we do, I guarantee we will have sufficient votes on the floor of the Senate to offer the American people the freedom they should have had in the last 50 or 60 years, and that is freedom to travel. In this case that freedom has been taken from them and it is outrageous.

I mentioned Joan Slote. When I became involved in this issue of what this embargo costs our country, I was furious to find an elderly woman riding a bicycle in Cuba and then fined $7,300 by her government.

By the way, when she came back, her son had brain cancer so she wasn't home, she was attending to her son who had brain cancer down in California, and she didn't get the mailing to her house and then they threatened to take her Social Security away. Why? Because she was suspected of vacationing in Cuba, riding a bicycle with a Canadian bicycle group.

All of this I think is nuts and I hope at some point the New York Philharmonic will be given the license, with their benefactors, to go down and do the concert in Havana, Cuba; do the concert there. In the meantime, I hope the Office of Foreign Asset Control will take a look at this and make a new decision. They have the right to make a better decision. In my judgment they didn't make the right decision here. I hope they overturn that decision. I have written them a letter today asking them to do that. Let's use a little common sense here.

Following that, I hope Senator Enzi and I will get our legislation on the floor of the Senate and remove the travel restrictions that now impede the freedom of the American people to travel to Cuba.

The country of Cuba has been a thorn in our side for a long time; I understand that. But attempting to punish the leaders of Cuba by punishing the American people makes no sense at all. That is exactly what has happened since the early 1960s. My hope is that some day, despite the news last Friday that the New York Philharmonic has canceled this trip--my hope is some day very soon we will have a policy that doesn't have anybody canceling trips because they didn't get their license to travel. My hope is anybody can travel anywhere, representing the best of this country.

The New York Philharmonic is a wonderful cultural ambassador--to the Soviet Union, and North Korea, and Vietnam, all communist countries-- and it can also be with Cuba. I hope that will happen soon.

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

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business for such time as I may consume.

Madam President, today a news story had the title ``Leading Dem Plans to Blow Up Deal with Big PhRMA'':

A Senate Democratic leader is hoping to blow up the deal

reached between the White House, drug makers and Senate

Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus by introducing an

amendment on the floor to allow prescription drugs to be

imported from Canada . . . et cetera.

There is a picture of me. I woke up this morning not thinking I was going to try to blow up anything. So I want to respond to this.

The question is, are those of us in this Chamber--a bipartisan group of 30 ranging from myself and Senator Snowe as the lead sponsor, Senator Stabenow, Senator McCain, and so many others who want to deal with this issue of fair pricing of prescription drugs--are we trying to blow something up? The answer is no. We have been trying for a long time in this Chamber to say we ought to have fair prescription drug pricing for the American people, and presently it is not fair.

This is a pill bottle that would contain Lipitor made by Pfizer. It is made in Ireland and then sent around the world. These two bottles are identical. One is red, one is blue, but had the same pill made by the same company put in the same bottle, this one shipped to Canada, this one shipped to the United States. This was $1.83 per tablet. That is what the Canadian consumers paid. Our consumers got to pay $4.48 per tablet. The same pill, same company, same bottle, different price-- American consumers get to pay the higher price: $4.48 per pill compared to $1.83. It is not just Lipitor. That is the most popular cholesterol- lowering drug, widely taken. It is not just consumers of Lipitor, it is consumers--this happens to be Canada, but in here I could put France, Germany, Spain, Italy, and so on--it is that we are charged the highest prices in the world for brand-name drugs. Plavix is 73 percent higher than Canada. Boniva is 90 percent higher than Canada. Zocor is 103 percent higher than Canada. The list goes on--157 percent higher than they pay in Canada; 194 percent. It is just not fair.

One day, I sat on a hay bale at a little farm reception with a guy in his eighties. We sat there just talking. He said: My wife has been fighting breast cancer for 3 years. He said: For 3 years, we have driven to Canada to buy Tamoxifen, where she could buy it for 80 percent less than it cost her in North Dakota. That is the only way we could afford to pay for her drug to fight her breast cancer.

I am just saying that is not fair. So a group of us have been trying for a long time to pass legislation that allows the consumer freedom, the freedom to say: If this identical drug is being sold in Winnipeg, Canada, at a fraction of the price why can't our consumers in this country access that drug? Why don't they have the freedom to access that drug?

We have put out a piece of legislation that establishes much greater security for the safety of our drug supply with batch lots and pedigrees and everything that attaches to the security side, and then we say the American people can access the FDA-approved drugs in the countries that have the same chain of custody we have and that have the same kind of safety we have. Give the American people freedom. When they have that freedom to access those identical drugs at a lower price, sold at a fraction of the price in other parts of the world, then the pharmaceutical industry will be required to reprice those drugs in this country and give the American people fair pricing. That is just a fact.

I understand the White House negotiated with the pharmaceutical industry and came up with a plan by which the pharmaceutical industry over 10 years would fill part of what is called the doughnut hole. It is complicated to explain--the doughnut hole is a portion of the drug benefit in which the seniors have to pay their own drug costs. So I understand there was an agreement between the White House and the pharmaceutical industry to provide a discount to seniors in the donut hole, but nobody here was a part of that agreement.

The 30 or so of us who have been very strongly working to address this issue feel that when the health reform bill comes to the floor of the Senate, we intend to offer this amendment. If you don't deal with the increasing cost of prescription drugs when you try to put downward pressure on the cost of health care, in my judgment, you have failed. One of the fastest areas of cost increases has been prescription drugs. You are just going to leave that aside and say: Don't pay any attention to that; it doesn't matter. You can't do that. So we are trying to find a way to put some downward pressure on health care prices, and that must include putting some downward pressure on prescription drugs.

Let me be quick to point out that the pharmaceutical industry does important things. I don't wish them ill at all. I have done things that support them, including research and development tax credits and so on. But I am not interested in just waiting to allow them to continue to price their brand-name pharmaceutical drugs much higher to our consumers than they do to virtually every other consumer in the world. It is not fair.

When the health care reform bill comes to the floor of the Senate, I and my colleagues--Senator Stabenow, Senator McCain, many others; a bipartisan group--intend to offer this bill as an amendment. It is not intended to blow up anything. We weren't a part of constructing anything; we are not going to blow up something. All we are going to do is demand that some common sense and basic fairness be established in the pricing of prescription drugs in this country. The way to do that is to give the American people the freedom to access this identical prescription drug in other areas where it is sold at a fraction of the price.

So, again, I wanted to disabuse anybody of the notion that we are going to blow up something. It is not true. I understand the pharmaceutical industry does not like what we are trying to do. They would like to have absolute pricing capability to price our drugs, in the case of Lipitor, at $4.50 a tablet when they sell it to others for less than half of that. I understand they would like that opportunity. On behalf of the American citizen, I say it is not fair. It is wrong, and it ought to change. If we pass the legislation we have introduced-- a broad bipartisan group here in the Senate--it will give the American people freedom and force, in my judgment, a repricing toward fair prices for prescription drugs in our country.

Again, I wanted to make the point that we are not trying to blow up anything; we are trying to fix something that is wrong, and we are going to try to do that when the health care reform bill comes to the floor of the Senate.

We have been guaranteed an opportunity. Senator McCain and Senator Snowe and I intended to offer this earlier in the year, and as a result of that, the majority leader said: Don't offer it here, but I will make certain you have the opportunity on the floor of the Senate. That is why we will be in line right toward the front end of the health care reform bill to offer the amendment and have a debate.

Financial Industry Reform

If I might, for a couple of minutes on another subject, say that I have spoken often about an issue on the floor of the Senate that goes back some decade or so on the matter of financial reform. I am not going to revisit all of that, which happened 10 years ago, but I do want to say this: I happen to think one of the first items of business this year should have been financial reform. I know others disagreed. I know the President wanted to do health care and some other items first. But I know the President and his team are working very hard now on financial reform. It is very important to get this right.

I wish to make a point. I have been reading recently about what is happening, and I would like to demonstrate what is happening.

Last fall, a whole series of things steered this economy into the ditch, the deepest economic downturn since the Great Depression.

So now, September 12, 2009, The New York Times, ``A Year Later, Little Change on Wall Street'':

One year after the collapse of Lehman Brothers, the

surprise is not how much has changed in the financial

industry, but how little. Not much change on Wall Street.

September 15, the Washington Post, ``The Wall Street Casino, Back in Business.'' Think of that. A year after the

almost unbelievable, deepest recession since the Great Depression, 1 year later, ``The Wall Street Casino, Back in Business.''

What are they talking about? Credit default swaps, derivatives, synthetic derivatives, you name it, all kinds of exotic products where they securitized everything. Everybody made a bunch of money, and on the way back from depositing money in their bank accounts one day, they discovered the economy collapsed because a lot of bad decisions had been made by people who were gambling.

September 8, the Washington Post, ``A Year After Lehman, Wall Street's Acting Like Wall Street Again.'' Not much change.

Wall Street Journal, August, last month, ``Bankers Play Dress Up With Old Deals'':

Irresponsible securitization helped bring the financial

system to its knees. Yet, as banks start to heal, little

seems to have changed. Wall Street has quickly fallen back on

old habits.

By the way, some of these FDIC-insured banks are still trading in derivatives out of their own proprietary account. They may just as well put a casino in their lobby or be playing Keno in their boardroom.

This is Steve Pearlstein, September 11: ``Wall Street's Mania for Short-Term Results Hurts Economy.''

Look, the reason I wanted to go through this is I agree not much has changed, and certainly not enough has changed. The question, it seems to me, as we deal with this issue of financial reform is, Will we address a central issue for me, and that is the too-big-to-fail issue? When we have decided as a matter of economic doctrine in this country that there are big companies that are too big to fail--too big to fail--to me, that is no-fault capitalism. We saw that last fall.

We had the Treasury Secretary come to the Congress, and he said, on a Friday: If you don't pass a three-page bill giving me $700 billion and do it in 3 days, there is eminent collapse of the American economy. The fact is, I didn't vote for the $700 billion because I didn't think he had the foggiest idea what he was going to do with that money.

The plain fact is as well that the very firms that did the kind of damage that steered this economy into the ditch--by the way, one of which the then-Treasury Secretary had previously worked for-- dramatically expanding leverage; engaging in unbelievable, sophisticated exotic products they couldn't even understand. But you didn't have to understand them as long as you were making a lot of money on them; securitizing almost everything; the scandal in subprime loans; paying massive bonuses to brokers who put mortgages out there called liar's loans, meaning people didn't have to describe their income in order to get a mortgage; and then securitizing the good with the bad and slicing and dicing as if you were cutting sausage and selling it to investment funds. So everybody was fat and happy, making all this money despite the fact they were creating this house of cards. And then the house of cards collapsed, and we had all of these firms with dramatic leverage and exposure. Then we were told: You know what, you have to bail them out. They are too big to fail. The American taxpayer has to come out and open their pocketbook and provide the funds because these companies are too big to fail.

The fact is, when we discuss financial reform, there is too little discussion about this right now. All the discussion we see are these stories: ``Wall Street is Back in Business Again''; ``Banks Still Trading in Derivatives on Proprietary Accounts.'' They might as well just put up a blackjack table in their lobby. Nothing is changing.

So the question is, when we get to this point--and it is very soon, I hope--will we seriously address the doctrine of too big to fail. If we don't, we will go down exactly the same road and, mark my words, we will find the same ditch once again for this economy. We must address this issue of too big to fail. Some of the too-big-to-fail institutions got a lot of TARP funds from the American taxpayer. And by the way, they have gotten bigger now--too big to fail, and now they are too bigger to fail, I guess. It doesn't sound like good English to me. But too big to fail is a problem, so you make them bigger. It makes no sense.

This has to be a centerpiece in our discussion going forward. Are we going to continue to have no-fault capitalism where some of the biggest financial institutions in this country are engaged in gambling, trading in derivatives on their own financial accounts in a bank, while the bank is FDIC insured? Are we going to continue to allow that, or are we finally going to decide that this doctrine of too big to fail has to be addressed along with the other issues? Are we going to securitize everything? Are we going to continue to allow this unbelievable expansion of leverage? All of these are important questions.

At the end of the day, to me, the question of the doctrine of too big to fail is overriding. We must end that proposition. It is not just me, there are a lot of good economists who believe this must be a part of our financial reform.

My hope is that in the coming month or so following the discussion on health care reform, we turn to financial reform. I am going to be on the floor talking again about the doctrine of too big to fail and about the Federal Reserve Board's notion of what that doctrine means and what their responsibilities are.

I yield the floor, and I make a point of order that a quorum is not present.

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

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

Mr. President, last evening the Senate passed a 3-month extension--until December 31--of the Federal Aviation Administration reauthorization bill, and I wanted to mention a word about that.

The 3-month extension is necessary because the authorization ends at the end of this month, September 30. This is such an important issue, so I hope we are able to find time on the floor of the Senate--I have talked to the majority leader, Senator Reid, about finding time on the floor to consider the FAA reauthorization bill, which includes important provisions to modernize our air traffic control system.

Let me talk about the process for getting a bill considered on the floor just for a moment. It has been difficult here to get things done on the floor of the Senate. Sometimes we have had cooperation, sometimes not. Sometimes on very noncontroversial things we have had to file cloture just on the motion to proceed. It takes 2 days to get cloture, have a vote on cloture, and then the minority has insisted on 30 hours postcloture. So you have to take the better part of a week just to get to a piece of legislation, even the noncontroversial ones. So my hope would be that perhaps we could get more cooperation particularly when it comes to passing the FAA Reauthorization Act.

The FAA Reauthorization Act is critically important because we need to modernize the air traffic control system. I chair the Aviation Subcommittee, and that is why I wish to bring this bill to the floor, along with my colleague, Senator Rockefeller, and move rather rapidly on the issue of modernization of the air traffic control system.

We are still flying using ground-based radar systems that have been around for a long time. Previously, I described on the floor of the Senate that when flying began in this country and we started to haul mail by airplanes, planes could only fly during the day when the pilot could see. Then eventually they began flying at night by building big bonfires 50 or 100 miles out so the pilot could see the direction they were supposed to head. Then, with more sophistication, we developed ground-based radar and we put transponders in an airplane which send signals to a radar on the ground, and that radar then puts a little signal on a

screen that says: Here is where the airplane is. Well, that is all fine, except in most cases it's actually: This is where the airplane was. Because for the next 7 seconds that jet is elsewhere. It is moving. So you have a single dot on a ground-based radar system, and the transponder says, here is where that jet airplane is, but it is really not there anymore. It is there for just a nanosecond, and during the rest of the sweep of the radar that airplane is somewhere else.

We need to go to an entirely new system. Europe and the United States are both moving to a system that uses GPS so that we know exactly where that airplane is. It is a much more effective system and a safer system. It will save energy. It will allow airlines to fly more direct routes, so it will save time for passengers. It will be better for the environment because planes will be using less energy. All of that is true. But we can't get there until we pass the provisions that move the FAA forward with modernization that are part of the FAA reauthorization bill.

I and others have worked on this for a long time. We extended the existing reauthorization last evening until the end of the year, but between now and then we need to pass the reauthorization bill through the Senate so that we can conference it with the House and get a bill to the President.

It also includes provisions dealing with safety. For example, I have chaired two hearings on the tragic accident in Buffalo, NY, with the Colgan Air flight in which many lives were lost. We have included in this legislation issues dealing with the FAA and the issues of pilot fatigue, crew rest, pilot training, and other issues dealing with safety that are very important.

We also include the Passengers' Bill of Rights, which some of my colleagues have worked on for a long while. I included that in the mark that has now passed the Commerce Committee. It includes, for example, one little piece in the Passengers' Bill of Rights says that if you are on an airplane and you are stranded someplace on a tarmac, they can't keep you more than 3 hours without being required to take you back to the terminal. We have had examples--tragic examples, I should say--of people being stuck on an airplane for way too many hours and not allowed to come back to the terminal. Well, we put a provision in here dealing with that which relates to the Passengers' Bill of Rights.

My point is this: This is important to passengers, it is important to the airlines, and it is important to our country to get this done and get it done right. My fervent hope is that we will get time on the schedule and get it through the Senate so that we can get it to conference with the House of Representatives and see if we can get done what should have been done 2 years ago. It is called the Air Traffic Control Modernization Program. It is part of the FAA Reauthorization Act, and it is very important for this country.

Energy

Mr. President, I want to talk just for a moment about energy. I know we have been spending a lot of time dealing with health care. I believe the Finance Committee is meeting and working on a health care bill, as we speak, and that is important to continue that work. Another important issue for the Senate to address is energy. I want to talk just for a moment about the need for an expanded energy program in this country and a new set of energy policies. Just as we have reported an FAA reauthorization bill, we have also reported a bill out of the Senate Energy Committee. I worked with Senator Bingaman and others on a bipartisan bill, and we have reported a very important bill out of the Energy Committee which is now on the Senate calendar. If we can pass it in the Senate and House, resolve the differences, and have the President sign it, this legislation can move us in the direction toward addressing the climate change. But it also makes us less dependent upon foreign energy, thus improving our energy and our national security situation.

Here are the issues. We produce millions of barrels of oil every single day by sucking it out of our planet. We stick little straws in the dirt, and we suck oil out at a rate of about 85 million barrels a day. Think about a globe in your office or someplace at school and look at where we are relative to the size of the planet. Even though we produce 85 million barrels a day for the world, one-fourth of it comes to this patch called the United States of America. We use one-fourth of all the oil that is sucked out of our planet every single day, so we have a prodigious appetite for energy.

That is not surprising. Everything we do uses energy, and we are an advanced industrial country. We get up in the morning and turn on a switch and the light goes on. We plug in an electric razor and shave. We use it for the coffee maker or for the toaster by using electricity. We open the refrigerator which keeps the food cool all the time. We get in our cars, put a key in the ignition and ignite an engine with probably 250 horses to take us to work or to get a doughnut and coffee. We are unbelievable users of energy, and we do not even think much about it. But if tomorrow morning we awoke and none of that energy were available, our lives would change in a dramatic way.

Now think of this: Although we need one-fourth of 85 million barrels of oil today, brought to this country, almost 70 percent of the oil we use is produced elsewhere. Some of it is produced in countries that do not like us very much. Then in addition to nearly 70 percent being produced elsewhere, about 70 percent of the oil in this country is used in the transportation sector. So those are the elements of things that ought to concern us. How do we deal with all of this?

What we need to do is produce more energy at home. We also need to produce different kinds of energy. I happen to believe we ought to produce virtually every kind of energy to the extent that we can do so, and do it with an eye and understanding on how that impacts climate change issues. We should be attending to and producing more renewable energy--including wind, solar, biomass and other renewable resources. Developing renewables will move us in the direction of addressing climate change.

So here is what we have done in the Energy Committee. We have produced a piece of legislation that maximizes the use of renewable energy.

Here is a picture of wind turbines. They are plentiful in my State and in many other States as well. We are taking energy from the wind and producing electricity. When we put up a turbine, it can blow for 10 years, 20 years or 50 years so that we are getting energy from the wind. It is renewable, increasingly reliable, carbon free, and very protective of the environment.

By producing electricity from the wind, solar or biomass resources, we are capable of extending and expanding our energy supply and in many ways, making us less dependent on foreign oil or energy that comes from foreign sources. This is especially true as we work to electrify our transportation system.

One of the things we did with respect to wind energy is, for the first time in the Senate Energy bill, establish a national renewable electricity standard. We said we believe there ought to be a requirement of how much of our nation's electricity should come from renewable energy. So we have a 15-percent requirement. When we get a bill to the Senate floor, we ought to increase it to a 20-percent requirement where 5 percent is for energy efficiency and 15 percent is for renewable energy. I would like to see if we can strengthen that standard which came out of the Energy Committee. But at least the first renewable electricity standard of 15 percent is in the committee passed bill. It is very important that we a starting point for where we want to be.

There is this old saying: If you don't care where you are, you are never lost. That is very true for public policy in this country. If you don't care where you are, then you don't set goals. But we should set goals because we are unbelievably and dangerously dependent on energy from other countries. That doesn't make any sense to me, so we must maximize the production of renewable energy.

The problem is where the Sun shines or where the wind blows and where we can produce electricity from the wind and the Sun may not necessarily be where we most need the energy. What we need to do is produce energy where we can and move it to the load centers where they need the electricity. So we have a transmission piece in this energy legislation which is very important because it essentially will create an interstate highway of transmission

capability to maximize the production of renewable energy and move it to where it is needed, the load centers.

We cannot seem to produce or build transmission capabilities at this point to the scale we need it. We have--we built 11,000 miles of natural gas pipelines in the last 9 years in this country to move natural gas, but we have only been able to build 668 miles of interstate, high voltage transmission lines. We just can't get it done. There are 100 different ways for people to say no. We put a transmission piece in this legislation which will move us down the road to maximize the production and the movement of renewable energy. This is a positive step for this country.

Here is a chart that describes what has happened with domestic production and use of petroleum in our country from 1981 to today. It is pretty clear from this graph what has happened, and this ever growing gap is what makes us dangerously dependent on foreign oil. We use a lot of oil, and we are unbelievably dependent on foreign oil. As I indicated, some of it is from countries that don't like us very much, and that is not smart at all.

The Energy bill passed in the Energy Committee awaiting floor action is legislation that contains an amendment I successfully offered that would open access to the eastern gulf of Mexico which is closed for oil and gas production. It would open it for oil and gas production. That is very important because there are substantial amounts of production available to us in this region.

Down in the Cuban waters we have this misguided embargo against Cuba for the last 50 years that has not worked. It continues, and at the same time, the Cubans are opening their waters for oil and gas production to companies based in other countries. We understand there is about a half million barrels a day for production available in these waters. The Spanish are there, the Indians are there, Canada is there-- they are all seeking to develop the resources, but American oil companies can't because of that embargo. That makes no sense to me, and we ought to remove that embargo, in my judgment. But the point is, the bill I have just described actually opens a substantial area for additional oil and gas production that came from an amendment passed with bipartisan support.

Here is another chart describing where we get our energy. It includes coal, petroleum, natural gas, hydroelectric, renewables, and nuclear. I happen to think to the extent that we can, even as we take action to protect our environment, we ought to consider all types of energy to make us less dependent on foreign energy.

Coal--I recognize, by using coal to produce energy, we release carbon into the atmosphere. That is difficult when we are dealing with a need to address climate change. In the appropriations committee I chair on energy and water, what we are doing is making sure we are investing in finding ways to remove the carbon from fossil energy. I believe it can be done. I believe one day we will have a near-zero emission, coal- fired, electric-generating plant.

I think we ought to do a lot of everything and do it well. I believe there are so many exciting things going on that will alter our future, if we just keep investing in them and make them happen.

I want to show a chart that is kind of a Byzantine chart, actually. This might not mean much to anybody at first glance, but this is algae. It is single-cell pond scum. We have all seen in very common places, especially those of us who grew up in rural areas. In a pond when the Sun shines we will see this film develop, this green slimy stuff in a pond. It is pond scum, right? Algae.

When I became chairman of the Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee, I restarted the algae research work that had been discontinued for 15 years. Why would we research algae? Here is why: Because if CO2 is a problem in coal-burning or fossil-fired plants, what we can do with it is take the CO2 from the facility and feed it into a big old greenhouse. We can grow algae because algae grows with sunlight, water, and CO2. We get rid of the CO2 by feeding it into and growing the algae, then harvesting the algae and producing a diesel fuel. We take the CO2, which is a problem because we want to protect the atmosphere.

There is research going on right now in which I believe Exxon and Dr. Craig Venter are working on for new algae research. They are taking the algae and excreting the lipids which, with little manipulation, would then become petroleum projects. Dr. Venter was also one of several leading scientists involved in the research to map the human genome which gave us the first owners manual for the human body. Dr. Venter and Dr. Francis Collins are remarkable Americans. He is now doing research in which people are trying to determine how to create synthetic microbes that would consume coal and, in the process of consuming coal, leave methane gas behind.

Isn't that interesting? Isn't it something, if we could have synthetic microbes turn coal into gas by consuming the coal? I don't know what the future holds for all of this. I do know this. The Energy bill we have passed in our Energy Committee builds on a lot of these interesting and important ideas, and I believe does it well. While I haven't mentioned nuclear, there are loan guarantee funds and other incentives that Congress has already passed to try to build some of the first few nuclear projects, which obviously don't produce carbon.

I think it is important that we recognize we should do a lot of things, do them well, make us less dependent on foreign oil, protect the environment, and provide greater national security and energy security as a result. That is the point of it all.

The reason I have described all this--I come from a State that produces a lot of energy and I am on the Energy Committee. I am the second ranking Democrat on the committee. I am also chairman of the appropriations subcommittee that funds all energy and water projects, and that is a great opportunity for me because I come from a State that produces a lot of energy. We have virtually every form of energy. In the western half of that State, we produce a lot of oil and natural gas. We produce a lot of coal. We also have a great deal of wind and biomass. In fact we have more wind than any State in America. According to the Department of Energy, we are the Saudi Arabia of wind.

Also, we have a plant that uses lignite coal and produces from lignite coal synthetic natural gas. It is the only plant of its kind in the United States. We take CO2 from that facility, put it in a pipeline to inject into the oil fields in Canada. We are taking CO2, sequestering it, selling it, using it in enhanced oil recovery because a very small amount of oil a new oil field is actually brought up until we use additional means to move it. We can do that by injecting it with CO2 which stays in the ground. Then we can bring up a lot more oil. We are doing all these things.

The reason I wanted to talk about this today is we need to get that Energy bill to the floor of the Senate, get it passed, get it to the President for signature. It is a significant first step in the direction of addressing climate change but is also a significant step in making us less dependent on foreign oil.

Senator Bingaman and Senator Murkowski, the chairman and ranking member of the Energy Committee, worked with me and other Members for many months to produce this legislation. Some say let's merge it with climate change.

We should put this energy bill and climate change together and bring it to the floor for a debate. Well, you know what. I have said I think it would be far more beneficial, as a matter of practical policy, to bring the Energy bill to the Senate floor, pass it, put that progress in the bank because it is a significant stride toward addressing climate change, then follow that up with a climate change bill behind that.

I know some have interpreted my remarks as saying I do not support climate change legislation. Well, I have already spoken on the floor to clarify that point. I do not support a cap-and-trade bill as it relates to the market trade portion of cap and trade.

I do not intend and do not have any interest in consigning the price of energy tomorrow to the decisions in a $1 trillion carbon securities market that will be populated by investment banks and speculators today that are going to tell us what they believe the price of carbon should be tomorrow.

I have had way too much acquaintance with markets that are broken and markets that do not work in recent years to believe that is what we ought to do. I do believe there is something significant happening with respect to our climate changing. I believe this country should take, at a minimum, a series of important ``no regret'' steps in addressing those issues.

But I have great difficulty with those who believe we should do cap- and-trade bill when you talk about carbon marking trading, given the experience we have had in recent years in other markets. We have discovered that time on the Senate floor is evaporating quickly because health care is taking longer than one would have expected.

We must also do financial reform. I would hope that financial reforms come after health care. My own view is we do financial reform first this year because that would have established the foundation by which people could have confidence in the system that steered this country's economy into the ditch. I have expressed this to the President.

But I understand health care is a very serious problem as well. So we need to consider health care and financial reform. I also hope we can consider the issue of FAA reauthorization; all these things and others are needed to be done before the end of the year. The majority leader understands all of that, is working very hard to try to fit the pieces of that puzzle into the time available.

My only point for expressing the point on the floor is that I would very much hate to lose some important work on energy that affects virtually every form of energy, including energy efficiency, the first ever national RES, more transmission, additional access to oil, and more that will make us less dependent on foreign oil and start to address climate change.

All of that is part of a plan that I think is a plan that will advance the interests of this country. So my hope is that in the coming weeks, as we think through and talk through what should be our agenda in the near future, my hope is we can find a way to move these important parts of an energy bill.

This, I think, should represent a significant opportunity for bipartisanship at a time when there has been precious little. Too little bipartisanship exists right now. But if there is any area in which most of us would believe our country's best interests reside, it has to be producing more energy and doing it the right way, protecting our environment at the same time. That is very much what this Energy bill strives to do.

It will advance our country's interests, and so my hope is that when the calendar turns for the new year, we will have sent to the President's desk an energy policy that has a lot to commend in it for this country's future. I visited personally with the President, the Majority Leader and others about this idea and commit to working with them on it.

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

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