Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 288 submitted earlier today.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no interviewing action or debate, and any statements be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess until 3:15.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Friday, September 25, 2009, at 9:30 a.m., in room 216 of the Hart Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Bill Curlin be granted floor privileges for the remainder of this session.

Mr. President, I am not so sure, given what is happening in the country these days, it would be very easy to enact the Medicare Program, had we not done so previously. The Medicare Program was enacted at a time when one-half of the senior citizens in this country had no health care--none. That is not surprising because the fact is, insurance companies do not go running after elderly people to say: Can we provide health insurance coverage to you? We know you are in your seventies or eighties, and we know you are probably going to need coverage for various things in the years ahead. We would like to provide that coverage.

In the mid-1960s, this country and the Congress said: People in their elderly years should not have to lay their head on their pillow at night and wonder whether tomorrow might be the day when they become ill, have a disease, have an accident, and go to a hospital with no health insurance to cover their needs.

This Congress did something very important, and, as is usually the case, when it created Medicare, there were plenty of people saying: Don't do it. It won't work. It is socialism. It shouldn't happen. But it did happen.

There is a health care bill being written in the Finance Committee now. I am not part of a gang of two or a gang of six or a gang of eight. I am part of a gang of 99 Senators, as of today, who will consider the bill they come up with. I do not know what it will look like, and I wish to see all of it before I make a judgment about its merits, but I will say this: Even as it is being written, we hear of efforts to cold call into homes of senior citizens to tell them that what is happening is an attempt to injure and take away services from Medicare for senior citizens. It is not true. It is false.

It is hard to make the case, it seems to me, but some are trying, that if you try to reduce the cost of Medicare by getting rid of waste and fraud and abuse, somehow that results in less health care services for senior citizens, yet that is exactly what is being represented by some.

I have watched very carefully and been very concerned about the issue of waste and fraud and abuse in Medicare.

There should be aggressive oversight, with respect to those who are providing Medicare benefits to senior citizens. There is too much fraud. My hope is--and my understanding from what is being written with respect to preventing fraud--it is going to be a new day. If you want to sign up as a provider and get reimbursement from Medicare for helping senior citizens, you better be providing the service. All too often that has not been the case.

So when we decide we are going to try to cut waste and fraud and abuse in a very serious and relentless and aggressive way, we have people who say: Aha, what they are going to do will harm senior citizens. It is not going to harm senior citizens in the delivery of health care to those who are entitled to it if we take on the waste and the fraud and the abuse and start putting the crooks in jail. That is not going to hurt senior citizens. That is going to help America's elderly.

Let me describe what I am talking about. In 2007, the Department of Justice randomly visited 1,600 durable medical equipment suppliers that bill Medicare for services. They found that one-third of the businesses did not exist. Think of that. They randomly visited 1,600 durable medical equipment suppliers that provide services to beneficiaries, we are told--they are billing the government for it--and they found out that one-third of them did not exist. They were mailboxes to collect fraudulent checks. They billed Medicare, combined, $237 million in 2007.

Putting those people in jail and stopping that kind of fraud does not injure Medicare. It strengthens it. It does not hurt senior citizens.

A man named Mr. Alcides Garcia was sentenced to 8 years in prison. Here is a picture of him, so we can give him a little credit for what he did. He was sentenced to 8 years in prison after his medical equipment company made millions in false Medicare claims.

Mr. Thomas Fiore, as shown in this picture, was indicted with 10 others on racketeering charges in south Florida for identity theft and Medicare fraud and much more.

In April of this year, just months ago, officials in Oregon wrapped up a lengthy fraud case. Again, to give credit where credit's due, this is a man

named Richard Vanderschuere. He faked disability. His wife Karen and son Richard, Jr. claimed to be full-time care providers. His mother claimed to be a weekend backup assistant. The so-called caretakers received payments for providing home health care while he received Social Security disability benefits. His mother was employed. By the way, this person's mother was employed as a fraud investigator for a State agency in the State of Oregon at the time. Here is his wife, to make sure she gets proper credit. We don't want to leave out the kid because they were all involved in this--trying to fleece the American taxpayers and defraud the American Government.

My point is very simple. My point is that when we take on waste, fraud, and abuse--and this is a new day; this is not part of the lost decade when we had a whole lot of people fleecing this program--when we do that, when we cut down on the waste, fraud and abuse and reduce the costs of Medicare, it is not about reducing Medicare for senior citizens.

I was in a little ice cream shop about 6 weeks ago in a little town in North Dakota. Two elderly women came up to me and said: Byron, please don't let them take my Medicare benefits away. I understand that is what they are going to try to do.

I said: Well, they are not going to do that, but who told you that?

They said: We got telephone calls from some organization that said you have to be aware they are trying to take your Medicare Program away.

I said: Well, that is not true.

They said: Well, we got the telephone calls.

I said: You might have gotten the calls, but it is not true. It is false.

But what is happening around here--again, I don't know what the health care plan will be that comes out of the Finance Committee, but I will guarantee this: Whatever it is, it would not have a ghost of a chance of passing this Chamber if it begins to harm Medicare Programs for the elderly in this country. This is a very important program. We are the ones who created Medicare. We believe it is important. Those naysayers, those people who have always opposed everything--and there are plenty of them, by the way--they are the ones who are saying: If you cut waste, fraud, and abuse, you are going to cut X billions of dollars of costs; therefore, you are cutting health care for senior citizens. That is false. I think it ought to stop. We have groups out there that are making cold calls into homes trying to scare senior citizens.

The fact is Medicare is a very important program. It has enriched the lives of the elderly in this country. Would we want to go back to a time when half the senior citizens reached the point in their lives where they were finished with their work life, didn't have much in assets, and then sat around thinking: Oh, my God, I hope I don't get sick because I don't have health care, and I can't find an insurance company that wants to cover me because they know what I know; that when you get older, sometimes you have those health issues that are most acute.

In North Dakota, I recently met a 111-year-old woman named Mary--111 years old. She is acutely aware of everything; she can visit with you about everything. She described to me when the barn burned down in 1904 when she was 6 years old. This is a wonderful, remarkable woman. She is certainly the oldest person in my State and I assume one of the oldest people in our country. But think of what she has experienced in 111 years. Unbelievable things: the automobile, the airplane, walking on the Moon, you name it. But then think of this: In the middle of all this, after she was well into her sixties, Medicare was provided to say to America's senior citizens: You don't have to be frightened anymore. We are going to provide health care coverage in your older years.

Now 99 percent of the senior citizens in this country have health care. They are our parents, our grandparents, those who raised us, those who loved us, those who cared about us. This country then provided a program called Medicare which said: You don't have to be afraid in your older years. You are going to be able to get health care. That is what Medicare is about. Is it perfect? No, it is not perfect. Is there waste, fraud, and abuse? Yes, there is, and we are determined to shut it down. It will be shut down with the right kinds of programs to prevent fraud. And if you try to cheat the Medicare Program, we are going to aggressively prosecute.

Again, I wish to make sure everybody understands, when we hear people say: If you reduce the cost of Medicare by getting rid of waste, fraud, and abuse you are hurting senior citizens and you are trying to cut senior citizens' benefits, that is false and it ought to stop. It is going on right now and it ought to stop. Organizations doing cold calls into homes of senior citizens ought to stop. And it is parroted by politicians and others who think it is an interesting message to scare senior citizens and it ought to stop.

Let me finish as I started. I don't know what kind of health care bill is going to come to the Senate, and I want to see it before I evaluate it. It is important. It is important to everybody. But I do know this: The Medicare Program is something that has very substantial support in this Chamber. I don't believe there is anything being written in any one of the committees in the Senate that would begin to diminish or in any other way weaken Medicare coverage for America's senior citizens. If that was the case, it wouldn't have a ghost of a chance of getting through this Senate.

I yield the floor.

On behalf of the majority leader, I object.

Madam President, I am in support of the amendment offered by the Senator from Oklahoma. I also offered an amendment which I understand will be accepted. It allows for something called an ``opt in'' for private property. It means that for the Northern Plains Heritage Area, private property would be involved only if someone wishes to be included. My understanding is, after having worked with the Senators from Tennessee and Oklahoma, and the Senator from California, who is managing this bill, my amendment will also be accepted by unanimous consent.

My amendment is amendment No. 2441 which has previously been filed.

Mr. President, let me say I think this has been cleared by both sides. It does have a connection to the previous amendment. I appreciate the cooperation of the Senator from California, the Senator from Tennessee, and the Senator from Oklahoma.

I ask for its immediate consideration and approval.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 1707, introduced earlier today.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read three times and passed, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and any statements related to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a technical amendment to the Act of June 18, 1934.

On February 24, 2009, the Supreme Court issued its decision in the Carcieri v. Salazar case. In that decision the Supreme Court held that the Secretary of the Interior exceeded his authority in taking land into trust for a tribe that was not under Federal jurisdiction, or recognized, at the time the Indian Reorganization Act was enacted in 1934.

The legislation I am introducing today is necessary to reaffirm the Secretary's authority to take lands into trust for Indian tribes, regardless of when they were recognized by the Federal government. The amendment ratifies the prior trust acquisitions of the Secretary, who for the past 75 years has been exercising his authority to take lands into trust, as intended by the Indian Reorganization Act.

On May 21, 2009, the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs held a hearing to examine the executive branch's authority to take land into trust for Indian tribes. At that hearing, it became clear that Congress needs to act to resolve the uncertainty created by the Supreme Court's decision. Therefore, this legislation was developed in consultation with interested parties to clarify the Secretary's authority.

Inaction by Congress could significantly impact planned development projects on Indian trust lands, including the building of homes and community centers; result in a loss of jobs in an already challenging economic environment; and create costly and unnecessary litigation.

Further, if the decision stands, it would have the effect of creating two classes of Indian tribes--those who were recognized as of 1934, for whom land may be taken into trust, and those recognized after 1934 that would be unable to have land taken into trust status. Creating two classes of tribes is unacceptable and is contrary to prior Acts of this Congress. In 1994, Congress passed the Federally Recognized Indian Tribe List Act to ensure that all tribes are treated equally, regardless of their date of recognition.

I want to thank Senators Tester, Inouye, Akaka, Baucus, Udall, Bingaman, and Franken for their support on this legislation. My cosponsors are well aware of the resulting impact this decision could have on our Native American communities. Affected tribes deserve our timely consideration of this bill. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the passage of this legislation.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a technical amendment to the Act of June 18, 1934.

On February 24, 2009, the Supreme Court issued its decision in the Carcieri v. Salazar case. In that decision the Supreme Court held that the Secretary of the Interior exceeded his authority in taking land into trust for a tribe that was not under Federal jurisdiction, or recognized, at the time the Indian Reorganization Act was enacted in 1934.

The legislation I am introducing today is necessary to reaffirm the Secretary's authority to take lands into trust for Indian tribes, regardless of when they were recognized by the Federal government. The amendment ratifies the prior trust acquisitions of the Secretary, who for the past 75 years has been exercising his authority to take lands into trust, as intended by the Indian Reorganization Act.

On May 21, 2009, the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs held a hearing to examine the executive branch's authority to take land into trust for Indian tribes. At that hearing, it became clear that Congress needs to act to resolve the uncertainty created by the Supreme Court's decision. Therefore, this legislation was developed in consultation with interested parties to clarify the Secretary's authority.

Inaction by Congress could significantly impact planned development projects on Indian trust lands, including the building of homes and community centers; result in a loss of jobs in an already challenging economic environment; and create costly and unnecessary litigation.

Further, if the decision stands, it would have the effect of creating two classes of Indian tribes--those who were recognized as of 1934, for whom land may be taken into trust, and those recognized after 1934 that would be unable to have land taken into trust status. Creating two classes of tribes is unacceptable and is contrary to prior Acts of this Congress. In 1994, Congress passed the Federally Recognized Indian Tribe List Act to ensure that all tribes are treated equally, regardless of their date of recognition.

I want to thank Senators Tester, Inouye, Akaka, Baucus, Udall, Bingaman, and Franken for their support on this legislation. My cosponsors are well aware of the resulting impact this decision could have on our Native American communities. Affected tribes deserve our timely consideration of this bill. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the passage of this legislation.

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

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

Madam President, I have consulted with the manager and the ranking member, and I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for 10 minutes.

Madam President, there is now underway--beginning yesterday in the Finance Committee--a discussion about health care reform. It is complicated, controversial, difficult, but important. I know they are working hard to try to figure out what they might do to see if they can put some downward pressure on health care costs and also to extend coverage to those who don't have health coverage.

There has been a lot of generous discussion on the floor of the Senate. We have had a so-called Gang of 6, now there is a gang--a larger number--of the Finance Committee members, and soon there will be a gang of 100 Senators who are trying to consider what to do about health care issues. We have had people come to the floor of the Senate to say there is a proposal for a government takeover of health care. I don't support that. I don't believe anybody has proposed that but, nonetheless, we have had people come to the floor of the Senate saying that is what is being proposed. I don't support a health care reform plan that lifts the ban on using Federal funding for abortion services. I don't support government rationing of health care. I don't believe that has been proposed, although it has been alleged it has been proposed. I don't support providing health care benefits to those who have come to this country illegally. And I don't support doing anything that undermines Medicare for the elderly or in any way diminishes or undermines VA health care.

All of these have been discussed by people who have trotted over to the floor of the Senate to make allegations about thing one or another. At some point we will consider and vote on the floor of the Senate on legislation that I think meets the interests of this country, meets the test of being in the public interest, and does not represent a government takeover of health care. But having said that, let me make a point that one of the things that has not been adequately discussed, but will be, is the issue of price increases for health care--cost increases--and especially that portion that relates to prescription drugs.

Let me be quick to say with respect to prescription drugs that the pharmaceutical industry plays a very important role in this country. The development of prescription drugs some with private investment funding in research and development by the pharmaceutical industry, some is a result of what we spend in public funding through the National Institutes of Health and then make what we have learned available to these companies--all of these in my judgment benefit this country and reflect the public interest.

The relentless march of increased costs of health care in virtually all areas includes the increased cost of prescription drugs, and the question is: What do we do about that? There is very little discussion about it, but I want to talk about it for a couple of minutes today.

I have introduced--for some number of sessions of the Congress now, along with my colleague on the other side of the aisle, Senator Snowe-- a piece of legislation that has had broad bipartisan support. It includes the late Senator Ted Kennedy as a cosponsor during this session of the Congress. It includes Senator Barack Obama as a cosponsor in the last Congress. It includes Senator John McCain, Senator John Thune, and Senator Grassley. It is bipartisan and has had very broad support. Yet we have not been able to get it through the Congress because it is controversial. Let me describe what it is. It is legislation that tries to put some downward pressure on the escalating prices of prescription drugs.

I understand it is legislation that causes great concern to the pharmaceutical industry. I understand that because they price prescription drugs in this country the way they want to price them, and the way they want to price them is for brand-name prescription drugs we pay the highest prices in the world by far, not even close.

I have a pretty good description of that in my desk. These are empty bottles. Let me ask unanimous consent I be able to show them on the floor of the Senate.

These are bottles in which Lipitor is deposited. It is made in Ireland. The company which makes Lipitor, which is the highest selling prescription drug for the control of cholesterol of any drug in the world, I think--it is very popular.

As we can see this drug is made in a factory in Ireland and then sent around the world. This is actually the same bottle--one is blue and one is red. But this was sent to Canada and this was sent to the United States. The only difference is that in the United States, if we buy a tablet of Lipitor in this order, we pay $4.48, and the Canadian consumer pays $1.83.

It is not just the U.S. versus Canada. It is the U.S. price versus prices almost anywhere. Again, the same drug put in the same bottle in a plant sends medicine around the world to Germany, Italy, Spain, France, England and, yes, Canada and the United States, and what is the difference? There is no difference. It is the same pill put in the same bottle. The difference is price. We get to pay double what most other people in the world pay for Lipitor. Fair? Not as far as I am concerned. It does not make much sense to me.

How do we make that stick? We make that stick by saying to the American people: You can't purchase that same FDA-approved drug when it is sold in other parts of the world. You can't purchase that for half the price because we will not allow you to bring it back into this country because we are worried, the pharmaceutical industry says, that counterfeit drugs would come into the country.

Let me talk just a bit about that. When I say this, I don't want anybody to believe our drug supply is unsafe, but I do want to say this: 40 percent of the active ingredients in U.S. prescription drugs currently come from India and China. I am going to talk about that just for a minute. I am saying this because the pharmaceutical industry continues--including yesterday as a result of stories about this-- continues to say if we pass the legislation that a broad bipartisan group of us want to pass, that gives the American people freedom--yes, freedom; the freedom to purchase the identical FDA-approved drug from wherever they choose to purchase it--they say if we do that we undermine the safety of prescription drugs, there are counterfeits, and so on--safety.

Forty percent of the active ingredients in prescription drugs come from India and China. Last year the Wall Street Journal did a very large story and did some first rate journalism, I might say.

More than half the world's heparin, the main ingredient in

a widely used anti-clotting medicine, gets its start in

China's poorly regulated supply chain.

So ingredients go into medicine that comes into this country, heparin in this case. Let me describe the photographs in the Wall Street Journal. They went to find out where the heparin came from.

Here is an example of a man using a tree branch to stir a caldron of material coming from pig intestines that becomes heparin, from which the ingredient for heparin is extracted. You can see the kind of facility this is; uninspected, by the way. Never inspected. Pig intestines coming out of this machine. These are Wall Street Journal photographs, not mine, that describe heparin, the active ingredient, heparin, originating in this sort of unregulated area in rural China.

The industry is saying to me if we pass legislation that requires batch lots and pedigrees and controls, manufacturing controls on anything that comes in, and chain of custody, somehow we would injure the safety of the drug supply? Come on, that is not the case at all.

In fact, what we will do with the legislation that we have created is dramatically improve the safety of all of our drug supply because of what we provide for the FDA and what we require to be done to assure the safety of the chain of custody for the drug supply.

Dr. David Kessler, former head of the FDA, says this about our proposal. The Dorgan-Snowe bill ``provides a sound framework for assuring that imported drugs are safe and effective. Most notably, it provides additional resources to the agency to run such a program, oversight by the FDA of the chain of custody of imported drugs back to the FDA-inspected plants, a mechanism to review imported drugs to ensure that they meet FDA's approval standards, and the registration and oversight of importers and exporters to assure that imported drugs meet these standards and are not counterfeit.''

The question is this: It is not whether the pharmaceutical industry is a good industry--it is. It is not whether it does good things for our country--it does. I have supported the pharmaceutical industry in many ways. I support the research and development tax credit from which they benefit. I have always supported that. I am very interested in driving more research, so I support that. I have written that I would even support an increase in the patent period in cases where it takes them longer than it should take to get their product to market. They do have a point about that. I am not interested in injuring anybody, especially this industry.

I do think, however, if we are going to talk about how to deal with the relentless march of increased health care costs, we cannot ignore the increased costs of prescription drugs.

The pharmaceutical industry and the White House had announced a deal by which the pharmaceutical industry would contribute $80 billion over 10 years to help pay for what they had described. Basically, it is providing a benefit to help partially fill the so-called doughnut hole--I know this is Washington jargon--for senior citizens in Medicare; to partially fill that it provides rebates for purchases of brand-named drugs.

I think that is fine. But that is not a proxy for trying to restrain the relentless increase in the cost of prescription drugs in this country.

In 2008, the average price increase for the most widely used brand- name prescription drugs was 8.7 percent, more than twice the rate of general inflation. The fact is, if we go back we see what has happened to the cost of these prescription drugs in our country. It is up, up, and way up, and too many people are having to determine whether they purchase their medicine or buy their groceries, or purchase their medicine or pay their rent. I think there are ways for us to address it.

My colleagues and I are offering legislation when a health care bill comes to the floor of the Senate. We are going to offer legislation that will be the Dorgan-Snowe bill with, I think, somewhere around 30 cosponsors or so, that is very simple. It simply provides the freedom for the American consumer to purchase the FDA-approved drug where they choose to purchase the drug, and we outline the countries in which there is a nearly identical chain of custody to the chain of custody we have in our country for prescription drugs, then provide the resources for the FDA to monitor and to deal with that.

Second and most important, we provide requirements for pedigrees and batch numbers and lot numbers to be able to trace back prescription drugs.

One of the things we discovered with the heparin issue is we couldn't trace it back to find out where it came from. That does not make any sense to me. We do need legislation, in my judgment.

I received a letter from a woman in North Dakota a while back. She is suffering from fibromyalgia. She had the disease 20 years and tried many different treatments. The disease impairs her cognitive skills and causes her fatigue every day, and she is trying a new drug that she says helps with the fatigue and her concentration. She said:

I have taken my first pill now and noticed improvement

immediately, but the drug costs $348 a month, $11.60 a pill,

so I am going to have to try to find a way to work despite

the fact I really can't work in order to pay this drug bill.

She says:

Byron, I am beat up but I ain't used up. This pill could be

the difference between

working and filing for Social Security disability. Is there

some way that people can afford this drug which doesn't yet

have a generic version? Is there some way to put some

downward pressure on prices?

The answer is yes, there is; legislation we introduced in the Senate. The Congressional Budget Office says this saves $50 billion, I believe it is, in 10 years, a $50 billion saving, and $10.6 billion of that is savings to the National Government. The National Federation of Independent Business--and I will ask unanimous consent to have this printed in the Record--the NFIB has just written, September 21, 2009, saying:

On behalf of the NFIB I would like to express our support

for S. 1232, the Pharmaceutical Market Access and Drug Safety

Act of 2009. . . .

It is signed by Susan Eckerly, the senior vice president of public policy.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the NFIB letter dated September 21, 2009, be printed in the Record.

Many other organizations have supported this legislation. The reason I wanted to visit about it today briefly is to say that whatever is considered in the Finance Committee and then developed as between the Finance and the HELP Committees and brought to the Senate floor for debate when health care is debated on the Senate floor, I will intend to be here with my colleagues. I know Senator McCain, Senator Stabenow, Senator Snowe--many others will want to be here to offer this amendment at the front end of a discussion and debate on health care on the floor of the Senate.

This has been a long, tortured trail--too long, in my judgment--to get this done. I understand, as will have been the case in the past and likely will be the case this year, we will have people stand up on the Senate floor and oppose us, saying it is going to undermine or somehow compromise the safety of the drug supply. It is simply not true. All of the experts who have looked at this have said we have created something that will actually improve the safety of the drug supply coming into this country.

Let me describe it in the easiest and best way I know, and that is with a very popular prescription drug. Somebody once said so many people take this they ought to put it in the water supply. I guess I don't support that, but Lipitor is the most popular drug, medicine for lowering cholesterol, by far. There are others as well. I should not fail to name them, but I believe this is the biggest selling cholesterol-lowering drug. The American people get to pay twice as much for the same pill put in the same bottle as virtually everybody else in the world. I think that is not fair. I think it is not fair that the American people pay the highest prices in the world. It wouldn't happen if the American people had a little bit of freedom, and that is the freedom to purchase this prescription drug from a FDA-approved plant with pedigreed lot numbers in a supply stream or chain of supply that is judged safe by our FDA.

We will have this amendment, have debate, have a vote. My fervent hope is that this is the time. There is a time and place for everything. My hope is that at long last this is the time Congress will pass this kind of legislation.

I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, I have just checked with the manager of the bill, Senator Feinstein, and asked to speak for 5 minutes in morning business.

Madam President, the other day when our colleagues were talking about our departed colleague, Senator Ted Kennedy, I was not able to be on the Senate floor, and I did want to say just a few words about my friend Ted Kennedy.

I had the pleasure of serving in this Chamber with him for 16 years. He sat back at that desk in the row behind me, and I had many opportunities to spend time and swap stories and talk about public policy with him. I knew him before I came to the Senate. As a very young man, I worked on his brother Robert Kennedy's campaign for the Presidency, and I met Ted Kennedy then. And, I supported Ted Kennedy in his 1980 Presidential campaign and met him then.

When I came to the Senate, from time to time I was invited to go to Hyannis Port to the Kennedy compound and visited there with Senator Kennedy and his family and went sailing with him. To sail with Senator Ted Kennedy was an extraordinary experience. He was a wonderful sailor.

Many things have been said and written about Ted Kennedy over the years, and especially in recent weeks since his death. I don't need to repeat his many accomplishments here in the Senate; my colleagues have done a great job doing that. Those accomplishments spanned 47 years and would take far too long and too much time to detail, and many have done it, as I said.

I will not repeat his love of all things Irish. Everyone understood that. He was a great Irish storyteller. No prouder Irishman in the world, I daresay, than Ted Kennedy.

I don't need to tell of his many acts of thoughtfulness and kindness, large and small, for the powerful and the powerless. They are well- known already as well and, already, much missed.

Many have talked about his wit and his love of storytelling and a good joke. That, too, was Ted Kennedy. Laughing and making people laugh was part of the hallmark of his character. Often when I think of him I think of a booming laughter that filled the entire room when he was full of joy.

I need not talk about his doggedness or his tireless work ethic or his determination, for they, too, were well-known to all of us who worked with him. Those were the pillars upon which he built success after success, often small, but then building and building, step by step, until it was consequential and often big.

Those were also the pillars on which he built decades of relationships. I think those relationships were the keys to understanding the man with whom we served--Ted Kennedy.

It didn't matter whether you were a Republican or a Democrat or an Independent. It didn't matter if you were a businessman or a janitor, young or old, White or Black, rich or poor, powerful or powerless. Ted Kennedy wanted to work with you to try to reach a compromise and see what could be achieved together. He just never, ever stopped; never gave up.

The great American essayist and author, Ralph Waldo Emerson, once said:

The characteristic of heroism is in its persistency. All

men have wandering impulses, fits and starts of generosity.

But when you have chosen your part, abide by it, and do not

weakly try to reconcile yourself with the world.

No one I know in this Chamber was more persistent than Ted Kennedy. He chose his part; he abided by it; he didn't try to reconcile his principles to the moment or to the world; and, he fought and fought for what he believed in and what he thought was right. Sometimes it was very controversial, but he was persistent and fought long and hard until the end.

Even when he was sick and tired and worn out he fought on because he loved his country and he knew his colleagues and others loved this country as much as he did. He knew there was always that common ground, love of country, and he knew that people of good faith, regardless of party and regardless of position, could achieve great things for the country they all loved.

When he was done, he had cast more than 15,000 votes, more than 300 laws bear the name of Senator Ted Kennedy, and he cosponsored more than 2,000 others. That doesn't include the thousands of laws he merely influenced. Much of that work was done on the Senate floor. It was his life's work.

If the Senate was his home, this Senate floor surely was his front porch, where he would let everyone know what was on his mind. When Senator Ted Kennedy, at that desk, was on the Senate floor, you may not have agreed with him, you might not have even cared about the subject before he began to speak, but you had to listen, you had to respond, and you had to take sides.

He was called the lion of the Senate by many. When he was on the floor roaring, it was quite a sight and sound to behold, a sound that moved hearts. It moved minds. It moved this very institution and, indeed, the country itself. He could be quietly persuasive, but on the Senate floor his passion literally poured out of him.

It was said long ago of Daniel Webster, another famous Senator from Massachusetts, that he was ``a great cannon loaded to the lips.'' Well, Senator Kennedy was a great cannon loaded to the lips, and this institution will long miss that passion, those words, his spirit, his love of life, and his love of this institution and our country.

There is an old saying that all men die, but not all men live. Well, surely Ted Kennedy lived. Senator Ted Kennedy lives in our hearts and in his good works and in his life's work, and I just wanted today to join my colleagues in saying: Ted, Godspeed, rest in peace, and all Members of this Senate miss you dearly.

Madam President, 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, we are on another spending bill, one of the spending bills we must address during

this Congress. I compliment Senator Feinstein and Senator Alexander for their work on this very important bill.

I also want to comment on something that was in the news today, stemming from a comment I made yesterday about some spending issues. I will do it very briefly.

This deals with the issue of the economic recovery or the stimulus package. I voted for that. I didn't vote for the TARP funds, $700 billion for the financial bailout last fall. But I did vote for the economic recovery or the stimulus program early this year because I believed it was necessary to give the economy a boost.

Frankly, I think this economy is showing signs of beginning to recover, and that is going to be good for all Americans. There are a lot of important investments being made in this economic recovery program, investments in building and repairing roads and bridges and many other investments in infrastructure around this country that at the end of the day will both put people to work and result in important assets for this country.

Yesterday, I made a point about one particular project that is being funded with stimulus funds, and I want to make sure everyone understands the point I made. Part of some stimulus funds were dedicated to the northern border ports of entry, smaller ports of entry between the United States and Canada. The specifications for these ports of entry were developed in 2002 and 2006, under the previous administration, by the Department of Homeland Security. So when money began to be allowed under the stimulus program to invest in the northern border ports of entry, the specifications created by the previous administration were going to drive how much was spent.

As I looked into it, I realized that these requirements were completely out of balance. The requirements would create a common footprint at small ports of entry and require the expenditure of, on average, $15 million for a small port of entry in circumstances where, on average, only five vehicles an hour were coming through the port of entry. I believed that was excessive.

That was not Secretary Napolitano's call. That was not something she did. That comes from the requirements from that agency that were developed in 2002 and 2006. So I asked Secretary Napolitano to take a look at that, and suspend the projects pending a review, and she immediately said, yesterday, let's review that, let's do a 30-day review.

First of all, I want to say thanks to the Secretary. I think that is exactly the right action. I didn't know these were the set of requirements that were going to drive that kind of funding. But, frankly, waste is waste.

Of the 22 northern border ports of entry that are slated to be demolished and rebuilt, 9 of them are in my State. Much of this money would be spent in my State. But I do not think that much of this spending is justified because I believe those requirements must change.

I agree that we should ensure that small port of entry have adequate security. I will support investment to upgrade those facilities where it is really necessary to do so. But I do not believe it is appropriate, nor do I believe Secretary Napolitano nor my colleagues here in the Congress believe it will be appropriate upon review, to spend $15 million on average at ports of entry where you have five vehicles an hour coming through the port. That is way out of balance. It makes no sense to me.

My comments were portrayed in some press accounts as some sort of criticism of the Congress for passing stimulus legislation aimed at economic recovery. It is not a criticism of that. A lot of that stimulus spending is necessary and is lifting the economy and creating an asset and people in jobs or putting people back to work. I think that makes sense. But it also makes a lot of sense for all of us to very carefully scrutinize how this is done, where it is done, whether it is a good investment, and whether it is fair to the taxpayers.

I will say again, I appreciate the fact that the Secretary is doing this review. I give her credit for doing that. My hope is that at the end of the review, she will conclude, as I do, that we cannot spend money that way. Those requirements that were created in 2002 or 2006 were excessive. You can have adequate security at these small ports that have five vehicles coming through per hour, without spending $15 million to demolish and rebuild each of these facilities. It is simply too much money.

I understand that perhaps some people in my State will be a little upset if they stood to gain from nine of those ports being upgraded. I am all for making investments that are the right kinds of investments, to upgrade ports at the northern border. But I do not believe we ought to waste money, and I think that is what would happen with the requirements that were created in 2002 and 2006.

Let me make one final point. I can understand, perhaps, why someone might be tempted to create extraordinary requirements. In 2002, we were in the shadow of the terrorist attacks of 2001. I understand how that might have made somebody create a set of requirements that now seem to be way out of whack.

The fact is that we need to have a secure Northern border, but we also have to use common sense. If in 2002 and 2006 there were design specifications drawn up that today would cost $15 million per port of entry, at facilities that receive only a few vehicles per day, I say this needs to be carefully reviewed. Let's now review those judgments and make sure that we are truly increasing border security, and that we are not wasting the taxpayers' money.

I wanted to reiterate that my statements yesterday were not a general comment on the Economic Recovery Act. A lot of good, important investments are being made that create jobs and create real assets for this country. But I think all of us should be vigilant and look at situations such as this and where change is necessary, to require and make those changes. In this case, I believe the right kind of change could save a couple of hundred million dollars, and I think that is important. Even if that saving and less spending comes in my State, I believe that is important.

Years and years ago, a Federal courthouse was to be built in my State. I believed the amount of money that was proposed to build it was twice as much as was necessary, and here in Congress I cut the money in half. In the end, they built a perfectly good courthouse for slightly less than half of the funds that had been originally proposed. I think all of us have stewardship requirements to the taxpayer, and that is why I wanted to amplify on what I talked about yesterday.

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

Mr. President, a friend of mine, Walt Jacobs, from New England, ND, writes a column in his local newspaper titled ``Around The Pot.'' On August 28, 2009, he wrote a wonderful column about a courageous man named George Ott and his service to our country as an Air Force pilot in World War II. I wanted to share it with my colleagues. The column is as follows:

Today, as I sit with pen in hand, my thoughts are with a

good friend, George Ott, who is spending his days at Hawk's

Point in retirement in Dickinson. My first recollection of

George is when he was in high school at St. Mary's with his

sister, Clara in the 30's, a time when there were no crops,

low prices, land was blowing and the future was dismal for

everyone.

Crops were better in 1939, and we experienced good weather

and a prosperous economy in the early 40's was enhanced by

the war in Europe and the United States entry to the conflict

in December of 1941. George interrupted his college and

volunteered for duty in the Air Force in 1940 and became a

bomber pilot. George bombed a Japanese submarine off the west

coast of Washington, one of the first of the war. Stationed

in England in 1943, his bomber was chosen to fly a secret

mission for the State Department which directed him to fly

with a courier to Accru, Africa and from there to Brazil,

South America and then to complete the secret mission to

Washington, D.C. The three-day trip was met in Washington and

the military cover and secrecy convinced the pilot of the

mission's urgency and its military importance.

He was sent back to England and continued the daylight

missions over Europe as squadron commander until Black

Friday, the last day of the day-light raids over Germany

until the Air Force could provide aerial cover for the

bombers. Until that raid on the 14th day of October, the air

cover from England had to turn back over Germany when they

reached their fuel limit, leaving the bombers to provide

their own firepower for defense. As the planes were shot down

from their defense formation, the squadrons were left to the

mercy of the German planes. On that Friday, George left

England, commander of the bomber group to bomb the ball-

bearing factory at Schweinfurt. He, in his leading plane, was

hit by defensive German antiaircraft fire before he reached

the target and fell out of formation. (As were 87 percent of

the American bombers shot down on that day on the Schweinfurt

raid.) He continued at a slower pace with the loss of motors,

but dropped his bombs and turned his plane for home in

England. George determined it was best for the crew to bail

out of the lumbering air craft over northern Germany, but he

continued with one of the four engines running and hoped to

make the coast of England. As he flew the plane alone, he

spotted a Messerschmitt fighter alongside and gave George a

friendly thumbs down sign and George left his plane. As he

floated to the earth in his parachute, he saw his bomber shot

from the sky.

George landed in a potato patch and as he scrambled to bury

his chute, he heard a sound behind him and there stood a

civilian home-guard with a pointed gun. George said the bore

looked big enough to crawl into with the statement, ``For you

the krieg bist fertig.'' (For you the war is over.)

As George walked around his prison camp he reached through

the fence and daily brought the tufts of grass to his stalag

and replanted the grass until he had a lawn by his barracks,

4x8. As that farm boy spent his time in his prison, the

spirit of his farming heritage wanted to lie on the grass

while waiting for the war to end.

So, today George is waiting once again, but he is not lying

on the grass by his stalag in enemy land, but at Hawk's Point

with the comfort he deserves so much.

So on Wednesday we will honor George on his 90th birthday.

Thank you, George, a good and honorable servant.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for as much time as I may consume in our allotted 30 minutes.

Mr. President, I wish to visit for just a few moments today the subject of energy policy.

Most of us spend all of our day having a better day because of energy and think very little about it. We get up in the morning, perhaps, and use an electric razor or an electric toothbrush. We go to the kitchen and have some coffee that was made by plugging the coffee maker in or turning on a stove. Then we get in a car, put a key in an ignition, start an engine, and off to work. We do all the while using all the energy available to us all day long, never thinking much about it.

We have a serious energy problem in this country in that a substantial amount of energy we use, particularly oil which comes from outside our country, including from some countries that do not like us very much. We are about 70 percent dependent on foreign countries for our oil, and, as I indicated, some of those countries are in some difficulty and turmoil. Yet we are unbelievably dependent on them to help supply our oil.

One of the propositions is, should we not produce more American energy? Should we not have more conservation in this country? Should we not have a plan that makes us less vulnerable and less dependent and improves our national security and our energy security? Of course, the answer to these questions is yes.

This is a big-old planet of ours, and we stick straws in the planet and suck oil out. Today, Tuesday, we will take out from the drilling rigs where we produced about 85 million barrels of oil from underground. One-fourth of it needs to be used in this country. The United States needs one-fourth of all the oil that is produced in the world today. As I said, 70 percent of that oil comes from outside of our country, and about 70 percent of the oil we use in this country is used in our transportation system.

We have a very serious dependency on oil. It makes us less secure nationally, and it creates all kinds of other issues. So the question is, What do we do about that problem? That is what I want to talk about for a few minutes, and I also want to talk about it in the context of some news reports that said recently that I and several others somehow did not support climate change legislation. Let me make clear what my position is regarding acting on climate change legislation.

I have said on the floor of the Senate early this summer that I do not support cap and ``trade.'' I do not have any interest in supporting legislation that will establish a trillion-dollar carbon trading securities market. This could benefit Wall Street, speculators and big investment banks who would be trading carbon on a Monday so we can determine how much energy prices are going to be on a Tuesday depending on how well that trading went on Monday. I have no interest in doing that type of activity. Not very long ago we saw what has happened to the price of gasoline and oil. For example, the price of oil went from about $40 a barrel to $147 a barrel in day trading in a little more than a year without any notion of supply or demand changes. How can you justify the runup on the price of oil from $40 to $147 a barrel over a number of months? I have already seen abuses of other markets. I have seen the markets with respect to derivatives and swaps and all of the exotic instruments that have been created in order to be traded on other markets. I have no interest in the carbon market ``trade'' portion of ``cap and trade'' and would not be intending to support that. There are other ways for us to have a lower carbon future.

I do believe there is something happening to our climate to which we should be very attentive to. I do believe a series of no-regret steps, at the very least, makes a lot of sense right now as we begin to address reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Let me say that while I have said I do not intend to be supportive of the cap-and-trade approach, especially with quotes around ``trade,'' I think there are some things we can, will, and must do to address the issue of climate change and bring about a low carbon future. Having said that, my hope is that the legislation already passed through the Senate Energy Committee will be brought to the floor for a debate because it makes significant steps toward addressing energy and climate change policy. It will also reduce our dependence on foreign oil and increase our national and energy security. This is achieved for our country by producing more American energy and by incentivizing the kinds of things that can serve, save, and create other forms of energy as well.

Let me talk just for a bit about the bill passed by the Senate Energy Committee. Some people have said that we have to bring an energy bill to the floor and combine it with a climate change bill. I do not believe that should be done at this time. In my judgment, it would be much smarter to bring an energy bill to the floor which has already passed out of the committee with a bipartisan vote. It is called the American Clean Energy Leadership Act. We should bring that bill to the floor, debate it, pass it, and get it to the President for his signature. That would do something very significant for our country's energy future. After that, we should then turn to address climate change legislation and how we create a low carbon future.

Here is what is in that legislation that I hope we will bring to the floor of the Senate first.

Renewable electricity standard. There is an old saying: If you don't care where you are going, you are never going to be lost. That is certainly true for a country and a congress. If you do not establish standards and say: Here is what we aspire to achieve, then you will never know whether you have met it. We should strive for a renewable electricity standard of 20 percent. The current bill's standard has 15 percent. When we get an energy bill to the floor, my hope would be we would have a 20-percent combined renewable electricity standard that says that we aspire to achieve this level of renewable energy as part of our country's electricity mix by 2021.

This would be the first national standard in the history of this country. More than half the States have already taken action in this area, but we need a national standard that creates the goal of what we aspire to achieve. A strong, national renewable electricity standard is what I support. There is currently a national standard in this energy bill which we can bring to the floor. Having a standard drives additional production of renewable energy. It is one significant step towards addressing climate change. Wind energy, solar energy, biomass are the types of renewable energy that this country needs to increase. Through an RES, we can incentivize that additional production.

Turning to energy efficiency, the lowest hanging fruit by far in energy is about taking steps to make our buildings more efficient. The MacKenzie study shows many ways to reduce emissions. By far the least costly, most effective, way to address energy and greenhouse gas emissions is through efficiency improvements in our buildings, homes, equipment, appliances, and factories. All of these areas are dealt with in this energy legislation, promoting much greater movement toward achieving the conservation that comes from expanded energy efficiency programs.

Another thing that is in this bill is building an interstate highway system of transmission capability. We can produce a lot of new renewable energy, but if we do not move it from where it is produced to where it is needed. We need to move it to the load centers otherwise it will not have done much good.

My home State, North Dakota, is No. 1 in wind production. The folks at the Department of Energy call North Dakota the Saudi Arabia of wind. We are almost born leaning toward the northwest against that prevailing wind. We

have a lot of wind. The fact is we don't need wind power in our State. What we need to do is maximize the production of wind power and move it to the load centers. In order to do that, you need a national interstate highway of transmission capability. We are not able to build it now, but the energy legislation that passed the Senate Energy Committee will give us the opportunity to do that.

We have built 11,000 miles of natural gas pipeline in the last 9 years to send natural gas through pipes around this country. During the same period of time, we have built less than 660 miles of high-voltage interstate transmission lines. Why? Because with the current rules, it is very hard to build interstate transmission lines, you almost can't get it done.

So this legislation has a transmission piece I helped write that gives us the opportunity to say: We are going to maximize the development of renewable energy sources, such as wind energy from the heartland, and solar energy from the South and Southwest. This legislation would allow us to move it from these areas where the energy is produced and then move it to the load centers where it is needed, by way of an interstate highway system of transmission capability, which we do not now have. Building an interstate highway system of transmission lines would be a huge boost to this country's energy future and also a significant step toward reducing our greenhouse gas emissions. It would accomplish this by allowing the development of clean energy sources, such as wind energy, solar energy, biomass, and others.

The bill would also reduce our dependence on foreign oil by transforming our transportation system. We are headed toward plug-in vehicles. Electrifying the short-haul transportation system is the best way to reduce the role foreign oil plays in our economy. By electrifying our cars at the same time as we reduce the amount of carbon produced by electric generation, which I will talk about in a minute, we not only cut our dependence on foreign oil but we also reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. Plug-in hybrid vehicles, I think, are a bridge to the electric future integrating the electric motor with a gasoline engine. All this is trying to aspire a new direction for our country.

I wish to say the most abundant resource we have is coal, and the energy legislation passed by the Senate Energy Committee also addresses the use of coal. Some people have said: Well, it might not be used in the future, I disagree completely. It is our most abundant resource. In this bill, we facilitate a large-scale demonstration and deployment of carbon-capturing storage technology which will allow us to continue to use coal while also capturing the carbon and using it for other products or sequestering it. But we can continue to use our most abundant resource, and we facilitate those necessary demonstration projects in this legislation.

This legislation will also be helpful to hydrogen and fuel cell technology in the future, which I am a strong supporter of. I believe hydrogen and fuel cell technology is another generation we need to work on with respect to the research. Finally, let me say I offered an amendment during the energy deliberations on this bill that opens the eastern Gulf of Mexico, including the Destin Dome in the Gulf of Mexico, for oil and gas development.

In other words, I believe we ought to do a lot of everything. We should be developing more, producing more including oil and natural gas. We should also find a way to produce coal in a manner that protects our environment, and we will. We should conserve more and save more. We should do all those things. But in the eastern Gulf of Mexico, there are about 3.8 billion barrels of oil and about 21 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. It makes no sense that we are so unbelievably and excessively dependent on foreign oil when we are not producing that which we have in our country. We should do all of that mindful of the environment; mindful of all the protections that are necessary. I understand that.

So I offered the amendment that opens the eastern gulf with a 45-mile buffer zone. I did not offer this amendment, but I will when we get it to the floor. This amendment will allow our oil companies to compete for production capability in the Cuban waters. The country of Cuba is interested now in producing and leasing oil and gas. The Spanish are there, the Canadians are there, India is there, and China is interested, but our companies are prohibited because of an unbelievable 50-year moratorium, against the country of Cuba. A 50-year embargo, which is almost farcical in terms of its failure.

We are told it is okay for everybody else to go there. We are told there are a million barrels a day in those waters after the production. There is no one in the world that is better at the kind of ultra or unconventional deepwater drilling than America. We have done the research. We have done the work to understand that we drill better than anybody else in the world. Yet we are told our companies are not able to compete for leasing in those Cuban waters. This embargo makes no sense at all.

As I said previously, I happen to think we should do a lot of everything and do it well. Whether it is conservation or other related issues--producing more, conserving more--and increasing the use of renewable sources of energy, we will step, in a giant way, toward addressing climate change. It is exactly what we should do.

We are told: Well, you have to bring Waxman-Markey or you have to do this or that. What we have to do, it seems to me, is to be smart. The smart thing, in my judgment, would be to take the legislation the Senate Energy Committee has passed, which does all the things I have described. It would contribute, in a very positive way towards reducing our greenhouse gas emissions and increasing our national and energy security by making us less dependent on foreign oil and making us more dependent on American-produced energy.

I mean, why would we not want to have a much greater focus on American energy produced in this country? Why would we not want to have a much more significant focus on developing national aspirations for what we want to do with renewable energy? It is this old case of we kind of walk around and say: Well, whatever happens, happens. Well, the fact is we can't consign our future to that.

I have spoken about, I guess a dozen times on the floor, that my first car, as a very young boy, was one my father found in a grainery in an old abandoned farm in North Dakota. I bought it from the guy who put it in that grainery for $25. It was a 1924 Model T Ford, completely rusty, with no wires or seat covers. All it was was a bunch of metal and a bunch of rust. As a young boy, I lovingly restored that old Model T. What I discovered, when I got it all done and running, was that you put gasoline in that Model T the same way you do in 2009 cars. Everything else has changed except that. Cars are computerized today, but you still pull up to a gas tank, take the cap off, and put gas in that 1924 Model T, as you do with a brand spanking new Ford. That hasn't changed, but it must. It so describes how mired we are in our previous energy policies. We can't get out of the rut.

The Energy bill we passed in the Energy Committee gets us out of this rut, it makes us more secure, it strengthens our country, and it makes us less dependent on others for our energy sources. Particularly those who don't like us very much.

One final point. Several years ago, there was a blackout on the east coast. Just like that, all the electricity was gone. At that moment, almost everyone understood what energy meant to them, and we understood its connection to our daily lives. It is unbelievable. So the question of reliability of energy for our country. Where do we get it? How do we use it? What does it cost? What does it mean for our climate? These are all important, interesting, and in some cases difficult questions. We have addressed most of those questions in an energy bill Senator Bingaman and I and many others had a role in writing.

I hope very much, after the debate on health care legislation, as people start thinking and talking about energy and climate change, consideration will exist for bringing a good energy bill to the floor that is a significant step in the right direction toward climate change first. Then at some later point, bringing a climate change bill to the floor. Because I think they are related but separate. I think it would be much

smarter to get the value and the success of an energy bill that has been passed by the committee and ready to be dealt with by the Senate at some point very soon.

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

Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Indian Affairs will meet on Thursday, September 17, 2009, at 2:15 p.m. in Room 628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building to conduct an oversight hearing to examine the Federal tax treatment of health care benefits provided by tribal governments to their citizens.

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

Mr. President, this legislation is now in the 30 hours postcloture period. We had a cloture vote late yesterday afternoon, and I believe the 30 hours postcloture will expire sometime later this afternoon, at 4 o'clock or 4:30 or so.

Let me again explain what we are trying to do in this legislation. This is reasonably simple. In all of the partisan dust that is created in this country, I think this is one of the few pieces of legislation that has broad bipartisan support. We have, I believe, 53 cosponsors for this bill--Republicans and Democrats--and the proposition is very simple.

First of all, we have lost a lot of jobs in this country. We are in the deepest recession since the Great Depression, and a whole lot of folks have lost their jobs. This is a bill to try to create more jobs. But it is a bill that especially addresses a problem that has been created in the last 8 or 9 years.

Since the year 2000, here are a couple numbers. Since the year 2000, there are 56 million more people living on this planet who are taking international trips. Let me say that again. This is a big planet with billions of people living on it. By the way, half of them have never made a phone call. Half live on less than $2 a day. But on this big planet there are people who travel internationally, and there are 56 million more international travelers right now than there were 9 years ago. But there are 633,000 fewer international travelers visiting the United States than visited our country 9 years ago.

Why is that the case? And why is it important? Well, it is important for a number of reasons. It is important because international travelers--I am talking about overseas travelers--on average spend about $4,500 per person per trip. Their travel supports a lot of jobs in the tourism industry. It supports jobs in every State in our country. So it is important for that reason--it creates jobs.

But it is important for another reason as well. When people come here from other parts of the world and see America and experience the culture and the character of our country, they leave, almost inevitably, with a very positive impression of this country of ours.

So for two reasons this is important. We have fewer international visitors--633,000 fewer--per year than we had 9 years ago, even at a time when 56 million more people are traveling around the globe for overseas visits.

I described yesterday what other countries are doing. Other countries

are saying: We understand that international travel and tourism creates jobs. So other countries are reaching out with promotions. Japan, Italy, France, India, England--you name it--they all have aggressive promotions around the world, to say: Come to our country. Come see the Eiffel Tower. See the wonders of France. See the beauty of Ireland. Come to India and experience the interesting culture of India. All of these countries are doing very aggressive international promotion for the international traveler, to say: Come to our country.

Something happened in the year 2001. Obviously, on 9/11 we had a terrorist attack--a devastating terrorist attack. As a result of that, our country tightened up on visas. We made it more difficult to come to our country. At the same time as we tightened up on visas, those who did want to come often had to wait for long periods of time, and they waited in long lines in order to get a visa. Then with respect to the Iraq war and other policies, people became upset with our country. So the result has been a substantial decrease in international travelers coming to our country.

The purpose of this legislation is very simple. It is called the Travel Promotion Act of 2009, but it establishes a public sector/ private sector partnership to begin promoting international travel again to the United States of America.

This is one of the few pieces of legislation that actually saves the government money. The Congressional Budget Office scores it as a $425 million in reduction in the Federal budget deficit over the coming 10 years. So this is not something that expands the deficit. This reduces the Federal budget deficit--that's No. 1. No. 2, it is bipartisan. A fairly large number of Democrats and Republicans have joined together to say: We want to do this. The vote on the cloture motion yesterday was 80-19. No. 3, organizations such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and others have weighed in saying this is very important for us to do. Other countries are engaged in this kind of promotion for their countries and we need to do it for ours.

So I, along with my colleagues, have authored this legislation. In the previous Congress, as chairman of the subcommittee that deals with these tourism issues, I authored the legislation. My colleagues, Senator Ensign, Senator Klobuchar, Senator Reid, and many others, Republicans and Democrats, have joined in the legislation that would create an opportunity for this country to compete internationally for international tourism and travel.

Mr. President, we will, I think, for the next 5 or 6 hours, stand at parade rest listening to people talk about what they want to talk about on the floor of the Senate, and it is a procedure that is a bit Byzantine. Most people would not understand the procedure. On something as noncontroversial as this, as widely supported by Republicans and Democrats, something that actually reduces the Federal budget deficit and extends our ability to create jobs in this country, we got 80 Senators to vote for cloture, which meant we had to file a cloture motion. That meant 2 days intervened because it takes 2 days to have a cloture motion ripen. Then we got cloture with 80 votes. Now we stand at parade rest until sometime around 4:30 this afternoon because 30 hours--if the minority insists--30 hours has to expire. At the end of 30 hours postcloture, then we will, presumably, have a vote on the legislation.

I am pleased to work with my colleagues, Republicans and Democrats. This legislation is the right thing to do right now. At a time when this is an increasingly smaller planet, an increasingly smaller world in which we live, I think it is important for our country to reach out to the rest of the world. Doing so is in our self-interest because it creates jobs and expands our economy. But it is also in our self- interest because what we have created in this country is quite extraordinary.

This is not a circumstance where we would promote travel to America for one destination. It is travel to America to see all of this great country in its grandeur. There is so much to see and experience here, and we know from polls that have been done with international travelers that when people come to this country and travel here and experience what exists in our country and understand the character and the culture of our country, they leave with an unbelievably positive attitude about the United States. That is an awfully good thing, it seems to me.

So, again, this is a bipartisan bill that will save the Federal Government money; reduce the Federal budget deficit; combine the best ideas of Republicans and Democrats; and had 80 votes for cloture. I hope we have at least that on final passage. And perhaps we will start off this work period of September and October on a pretty positive note, stepping forward together to say, Let's do something that strengthens our country.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, perhaps while my colleague is on the floor, I think it would be useful to at least discuss a couple of things that are apparently in disagreement.

The issue of a $10 fee that could be used in a public and private sector partnership, again, supported by the Chamber of Commerce and all of the organizations that want to support this country as a destination for international tourism--let me put on the board a chart that shows the fees our U.S. travelers currently pay to visit the visa waiver countries. They charge us fees. We are talking about a $10 fee to people from these countries--$10. Here is what we are charged if we go to France: a $51 fee, Americans going to France. We don't propose that here. We can see that in Spain, $14; the Czech Republic, $27. They are going to retaliate? They already charge the American traveler a fee when we come and go, and we are talking about a $10 fee that would allow our country to promote our country as a destination just as their countries are doing. We are not even in the competition.

The thing I wanted to ask my colleague about is, he talked about international tourism. I wonder if we disagree on this: There is a very big difference between the classification of international tourists and overseas travelers, travelers from foreign countries abroad. International tourists include Mexico and Canada--and by the way, the research that the Senator seems to diminish tells us a lot about this information. On average, a visitor from Mexico and Canada to the United States on a trip is going to spend around $900. On average, a visitor to this country from a foreign country overseas is going to spend about $4,500, a pretty big difference in terms of visiting Arizona or North Dakota and spending that kind of money.

But I wonder if we have a disagreement with this: All of the data tells us that in the last 9 years, global travel has increased by 56 million more people moving around the globe doing international tourism travel, and that during the same time, the United States has actually had 633,000 fewer overseas visitors than 9 years ago. Do we disagree on that? Because my colleague from Arizona seemed to suggest that everything is at a record high. That is not the case. It is not the case. Overseas travel from people coming to this country is down. It is down at a time when overseas travel is booming all around the rest of the world and we have over a half a million people a year fewer coming to this country. Do we disagree on that?

I am also talking about a different classification. I am talking about overseas travel. The statistics my colleague quoted I believe are statistics that include Mexican and Canadian travel to the United States. Obviously those are contiguous countries. We have a lot of people moving in and out. But I am talking about overseas travel. The official numbers on overseas travel I believe are that we have 633,000 fewer people coming to this country from overseas for tourism than existed 9 years ago. Do you subscribe to that?

Mr. President, I would simply say, it is not a matter of reciprocating against us; they already impose these fees on American travelers. Our determination to impose a minor fee--$10 for an international traveler from a visa waiver country when they use the ESTA system once every two years, not every visit--it seems to me to suggest is much less than other countries charge US travelers. And the Senator described an op-ed piece by my colleague Senator DeMint which, in my judgment, is full of misinformation, full of it.

By the way, I am sending the Washington Post a response to it today. But, look: International travel. My friend from Arizona talked about research. The Commerce Department research shows that in the first quarter of this year, there was a 10-percent decrease in international travel to this country. That is the official data from the Commerce Department. So it is not the case that tourism is at a record high, that we are setting all of these records; and it is the case, in my judgment, based on empirical data and research, that we have far fewer overseas visitors coming to this country now than we did 9 years ago.

I am telling my colleague something that relates, in my judgment, to substantial lost opportunity for a number of reasons: jobs we should have that we don't have; and second, an awfully good impression about this great country of ours by people who come here and visit it.

I think my colleague will agree with me that post 9/11, there were a lot of things done that suggested to people around the world that it is going to take you a while to get to the United States because you are not very welcome there. It is going to take a long time to get a visa. You are going to wait a long time.

By the way, I have something I wanted to show my colleague. This is all 2008 material, by the way, but there were headlines such as these: The Sydney Morning Herald, Sydney, Australia: ``Coming to America Isn't Easy.'' The Guardian, United Kingdom: ``America: More Hassle Than It's Worth?'' The Sunday Times in London: ``Travel to America? No Thanks.''

There is something missing here that we ought to be concerned about because my friend from Arizona represents a State that has a lot of tourism and a lot of jobs related to tourism. Virtually every State in this country will benefit from being able to promote America's grandeur and opportunity for people to come here and travel here, and we are not even in the game.

Mr. President, I respect my colleague's views. I would only say this: The evidence is clear and

it is not debatable that fewer people are coming to this country from overseas than did 9 years ago. In my judgment, we ought to be concerned about that and do something about that by encouraging them. Yes, let's deal with the wait times on visas. We are working on that and we have made some progress on that. But it is also the case that if while India and France and Japan and China and others are engaged in very substantial promotional campaigns that say ``come to our country; come and see what we have,'' and if while they are doing that with aggressive promotion we are sitting back and saying, ``Well, we are not going to say anything much; we don't have a promotional campaign encouraging people to come to America,'' in my judgment, we lose that opportunity.

Advertising works; I don't care whether it is a television commercial or a promotion. All I am saying is don't diminish that, because promoting travel to the United States can work, but deciding we are not going to promote anything I know does not work. In fact, in this past decade, we have been in a circumstance where after 9/11, it was pretty clear that we were going to make it much more difficult for people to come to this country, and did. Then we went through a period of the Iraq war and other things when a lot of people were pretty upset, so we saw a very substantial reduction in the amount of tourism coming to this country from overseas.

Again, I am knowledgeable about the op-ed piece that was written in the Washington Post described by my colleague.

I am just telling you that there will be a response to that because much of that had no basis in fact. So all I hope is that the 80 Senators who supported this yesterday will continue to support the notion of creating jobs in this country, on a bipartisan basis, with a piece of legislation that actually reduces the Federal budget deficit. What a novel thing that is.

Again, I have respect for those who disagree, but I don't want there to be disagreement about the facts. We do research in the Commerce Department on who is coming to our country and how many. That is valuable research. Let's take advantage of that and understand what it says.

Overseas travel across the planet is up, up, up, way up, and to this country, it is down. There is something wrong with that, something unhealthy about it. We can change that. That is what this legislation is. It is an attempt to change it.

Let me quote Mark Twain. I probably should do this every time I speak on the floor because I am always trying to sell something. In this case, it is bipartisan legislation that I think advantages this country.

I will say this again. Mark Twain was asked once if he would engage in a debate being scheduled. He answered, ``Yes, as long as I can take the negative side.'' When asked why would he take the negative side when he didn't even know the subject matter, he said, ``The negative side will take no preparation.''

I understand it is easier to write a big-old op-ed whacking away at things than it is to construct something that has merit and will advance this country's interests. I believe this bill has merit, and so do the 79 other Senators who supported this legislation yesterday. Later this afternoon, I look forward to passing this legislation through the full Senate.

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