Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, my understanding is that there is some time divided on the issue of the vote on the Travel Promotion Act, and let me take as much time as I may consume of that time.

Earlier today, Senator Kyl and I had a discussion on the floor about some statistics and numbers about tourism and travel. I don't want him to try to win a debate we are not having because there ought not to be a difference with respect to a set of facts. So let me just recite the facts.

I said this morning that on this big-old planet of ours, people are traveling more. That is a fact. Tens of millions of people are traveling around the world for international tourism purposes, and that is very beneficial to the areas where they arrive and do their touring. On average, an overseas traveler who comes to the United States spends $4,500. It is a very lucrative market to try to attract tourists from overseas to come to our country.

The dilemma is this: While more people are traveling all around the globe, and while Japan and Europe, while India and South America and many other countries and continents are aggressively advertising, asking people to come to their country, promoting their country's interests--I have mentioned France, Italy, Germany, India, China, and so on--all of them engaged in travel promotion saying: Come to our country, enjoy our country, come and see our country, travel to our country. It is a relentless bit of promotion by other countries, and they are very successful.

The fact is, more people have been traveling around the globe in international tourism, but we have had a reduction of 633,000 people coming to this country as compared to 9 years ago. Go back to the year 2000 and take a look at how many overseas travelers came to this country to see America and then fast forward to 2009. There are over half a million fewer people coming to our country.

This legislation we are going to vote on is very simple. It says: Let's have a private-public sector partnership that promotes America as a destination for international tourism.

In our earlier discussion, Senator Kyl said we should be dealing with the entry process that many have complained about. The fact is, we are dealing with that. I have held hearings on that. We have substantially changed the waiting time for trying to get a visa to come to the United States. Yes, there were long lines, long waits, and much of that has been solved and reduced substantially. In fact, the State Department says that 90 percent of the consular posts have visa wait times of less than 30 days for students and business travelers, just as an example. We are making progress in those areas.

But we should not, in my judgment, allow this issue of promotion of foreign and international travel be the province of other countries and not us. We ought to be involved. We ought to say to people: You are welcome to come to this country. I showed some of the newspaper reports in recent years that suggest to people: You are not welcome in America. Travel to America? No thanks. Too much of a hassle. In fact, after the terrible tragedy of 9/11/2001, we were not encouraging people to come to this country at all. In fact, we were suggesting that we were worried about people coming into this country. We wanted to make sure we were not allowing terrorists in, so we didn't exactly have the welcome mat out.

This legislation now, 8 years later, says: Let's put the welcome mat out to say, you know what, you want to compete for international tourism? So do we. You want to go see the Eiffel Tower? Well, that is fine. How about coming to see the Empire State Building, Theodore Roosevelt National Park, Old Faithful, Yellowstone, Las Vegas, the Pembina Gorge. How about coming to America to understand the culture of America, the values, the character of America.

One of the things we understand is that when people come here to travel across the United States, they leave, having traveled in this country, with an unbelievably good impression about what America is. We know that because there has been a great deal of polling to understand it. So in addition to creating a very substantial number of jobs at a time when people have lost their jobs--and by the way, tourism and promotion of tourism, especially with overseas travelers who spend a lot of money when they come to this country, promotes a substantial number of jobs. In addition to that, it promotes dramatic good will all around the world about this country of ours.

So this legislation is very simple. It is bipartisan at a time when not very much is bipartisan. It actually saves money. At a time when there is concern about spending money, this reduces the budget deficit. It doesn't increase it; this actually reduces the budget deficit. At the same time, it will create hundreds of thousands of new jobs. So how about that--a piece of legislation that is bipartisan, with Republicans and Democrats cosponsoring it and bringing it to the floor, it saves money rather than adds to the budget deficit, and it produces hundreds of thousands of jobs going forward. It seems to me this makes good sense for this Congress.

I am expecting this afternoon--with the help of my colleagues Senator Ensign, Senator Klobuchar, Senator Reid, and so many others who have worked on this legislation, I am hoping we will get a very strong vote, get it to the House of Representatives, and get it signed by the President so we can put a lot of people to work in this country as well as incentivize people to come to this country to see what it is about, and that is an awfully good thing, in my judgment.

Let me yield the floor and reserve the remainder of the time. I think the Senator from Nevada wishes to speak.

Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. President, let me just observe, my colleague from Nevada probably knows there are some who have raised the question of a $10 fee that will be assessed travelers who are coming into this country, and they have said: What an awful thing to do. They say that a $10 fee could be onerous, burdensome, and other countries may retaliate.

This is a fee with respect to people who are coming to this country from countries participating in the Visa Waiver Program. I showed this morning that virtually all of the countries in the Visa Waiver Program charge a much higher fee to an American traveler who goes to their country. We are not suggesting a fee that should in any way deter somebody from coming to our country.

Mr. President, $10 is not a significant amount of money for somebody engaged in international travel. And it's a one time fee on the use of the Electronic System for Travel Authorization--ESTA--program, which lasts for two years. This isn't even $10 each trip--someone could travel many times in those two years. And what we are doing with that fee is raising the funds to engage in a promotion program to promote America, our country.

My colleague from Nevada, Senator Ensign, this morning said that advertising works, but most advertising with respect to travel and tourism and promotion in this country is in promotion of a specific company, or perhaps a town. But there is no advertising or promotion on the part of this country to say to people around the world that you are welcome to come to this country. We want you to come to America. Experience the culture and character of this great country of ours.

That is what this travel promotion program is about. It is a public sector, but mostly private sector program, the funding from which will come in part from a $10 fee from people coming from countries that impose a much higher assessment on Americans when we go to those countries, and in part on contributions from the private sector.

I also make the point that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has issued a letter of very strong support, believing this is a very pro-business proposal that will create jobs in our country. My hope is we will get a very strong vote on it today.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time during the quorum call be divided equally between both sides.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, have the yeas and nays been ordered?

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Indian Affairs will meet on Thursday, September 10, 2009, at 2:15 p.m. in Room 628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building to conduct a business meeting on S. 797, a bill to amend the Indian Law Enforcement Reform Act, the Indian Tribal Justice Act, the Indian Tribal Justice Technical and Legal Assistance Act of 2000, and the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to improve the prosecution of, and response to, crimes in Indian country, and for other purposes; S. 313, a bill to resolve water rights claims of the White Mountain Apache Tribe in the State of Arizona, and for other purposes; S. 375, a bill to authorize the Crow Tribe of Indians water rights settlement, and for other purposes; S. 965, a bill to approve the Taos Pueblo Indian Water Rights Settlement Agreement, and for other purposes; S. 1105, a bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Commissioner of Reclamation, to develop water infrastructure in the Rio Grande Basin, and to approve the settlement of the water rights claims of the Pueblos of Nambe, Pojoaque, San Ildefonso, and Tesuque; and S. 1388, a bill to provide for equitable compensation to the Spokane Tribe of Indians of the Spokane Reservation for the use of tribal land for the production of hydropower by the Grand Coulee Dam, and for other purposes, to be followed immediately by a hearing to examine S. 1635, 7th Generation Promise: Indian Youth Suicide Prevention Act of 2009.

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

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

Mr. President, I would make a request that Senator Whitehouse be recognized following the presentation by the Senator from Arizona, that I be recognized following Senator Whitehouse, and Senator Inhofe be recognized following my presentation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business for 15 minutes.

Mr. President, let me follow on the remarks of my colleague from Rhode Island as he discussed briefly at the end of his remarks the loss of our colleague and friend, Senator Ted Kennedy.

The desk that is now cloaked in black and adorned with flowers is a desk that was once occupied by Senator John F. Kennedy, then occupied by Senator Robert Kennedy, and for many years occupied by Senator Ted Kennedy.

He was an extraordinary friend to all of us, a remarkable legislator. This is not a case of the Senate just losing one Senator. He was such a much larger presence than that in the public life of our country and particularly in the workings of this Congress.

My thoughts and prayers have been with Ted Kennedy and his family over these many months as he has battled brain cancer. Now, since his death, we have all reflected on what he meant to us and to this country.

Today it seems inappropriate to take the floor of the Senate without at least acknowledging the absence of our friend, Ted Kennedy, and to send our prayers to his family.

Mr. President, when Senator Kennedy would come to the floor with a booming voice, full of passion about an issue, it was an extraordinary thing to watch and to listen to. He had that kind of passion. I do want to say there are a lot of things for us to be passionate about. One of the things I have talked about on the floor of the Senate is the waste, fraud and abuse in public spending. All of us believe in investing in programs that work to try to help make life better in this country and advance the interests of this country. But it makes me furious to see the kinds of things I see from time to time that represent waste, fraud, and abuse and unbelievable incompetence. Let me describe just one.

We know this not because of some extraordinary work by this body. We know this because of some extraordinary work by C.J. Chivers and Eric Schmitt at the New York Times because they wrote a story about it.

Let me tell you the story, and I am sure it will make every American as angry as it makes me. This is a picture of Efraim Diveroli, a 22- year-old CEO of a firm awarded $300 million in U.S. contracts to provide armaments, bullets, and guns to the Afghan fighters. That is right. A 22-year-old man using a shell corporation established by his father, working out of a building with an unmarked door in Miami, got $300 million in contracts from the Department of Defense. He was a CEO. By the way, there is no evidence of any other employees except him and his vice president. Yes, his vice president was older, 25 years old and a massage therapist.

Let me say that again. The Department of Defense gave $300 million in

contracts to a 22-year-old CEO of a company--a company that was run by a 22-year-old CEO--and a 25-year-old vice president massage therapist.

Why do I tell you this today? Because a new story just recently described the fact that Mr. Diveroli pled guilty to a fraud conspiracy charge relating to the $300 million in U.S. contracts. He faces up to 5 years in prison.

I have spoken about this man and this circumstance probably three or four times on the floor of the Senate to ask the question: How on Earth could this have happened?

Let me just show, if I might, what this was about. This was about products. No, not staplers or reams of paper. These were killer products, ammunition; ammunition that was supposed to be provided to the Afghan fighters. As it turns out, ammunition that spills out of boxes. Here are some other examples.

In this chart, these are bullets, 40-year-old, Chinese-made cartridges they found somewhere in the world and sent them over to Afghanistan and the Afghan fighters.

Here we can see spilling out of boxes 42-year-old Chinese ammunition that was delivered in Afghanistan from these two folks.

The 22-year-old CEO with whom both the Defense Department and the State Department did business, by the way had previous contracts with the State Department. They were unsatisfactory, and despite that, he got $300 million in contracts from the Defense Department. This photograph is from 2007. That is when he got the $300 million in defense contracts. This photograph happens to be a police photograph because he was arrested for assaulting a parking lot attendant. At the time, he was found to have had a forged driver's license which made him out to be 4 years older than he really was. He said he forged the license and didn't need it any longer now that he is 21 because he only wanted to buy alcohol in the first place.

They ran the company, AEY--the 22- and 25-year-olds getting $300 million in defense contracts after they had gotten contracts with the State Department and judged to be unsatisfactory--out of a building in Miami. It was an unmarked door in a Miami Beach building. That is all you could see. The only evidence that exists suggests that this was a company with just two people.

Mr. Packouz, the 25-year-old massage therapist, has also pled guilty. So both have now pled guilty. I have shown examples of the arms they were supposed to have procured for the Afghan fighters, and when they were delivered, the Afghan fighters called them ``junk''--junk--stuff that was made in the 1960s in China.

The way they purchased this so-called junk violated U.S. law in the first place. The New York Times originally published this story. That is when I saw it. That is when I came to the floor of the Senate and asked a very simple question: How did this happen? How on Earth could this have happened? Who is minding the store? If the Army had made the slightest effort to look into the backgrounds of Mr. Diveroli and Mr. Packouz, they never would have granted contracts to them.

The award was made in January 2007 by the Army Sustainment Command. On May 7, 2008, I met with Army LTG William Mortensen to find out why on Earth they gave contracts in this circumstance. Mr. Mortensen was a three-star general, Deputy Commander of the Army Materiel Command, which commanded authority over the Army Sustainment Command. They had awarded this contract. General Mortensen has since retired. He was completely unapologetic about this, by the way. He said the Army contracts were with companies, not individuals, and on paper the Diveroli company looked just fine.

Of course it didn't because they had not looked at the paper. Had they looked at the State Department with which that company previously contracted, they would have found out this is nobody with whom to contract. He told me nobody in the Army had thought to look through the background of Mr. Diveroli and Mr. Packouz, even though this was a company which consisted, as we know, of just two people. He told me, under similar circumstances, the Army would probably make the same decision again and give contracts to such people again. Then he told me if Mr. Diveroli and Mr. Packouz were acquitted, the Army would go back to doing business with them.

If General Mortensen had wanted to know a little bit about with whom they were doing business to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars he could have gone to MySpace. Mr. Diveroli had a page on MySpace. He describes himself as a super nice guy. He said on MySpace:

I had problems in high school so I was forced to I work and

probably grew up way too fast.

He said:

Basically I'm just chilling with my boys.

And he likes to go clubbing and see movies.

He could have checked, of course, more than MySpace.

He could have checked perhaps a criminal record and found he had been charged with domestic violence and with drunk driving. He could have Googled his name and discovered the vice president, in addition to being a massage therapist, was a professional song writer.

With these kinds of backgrounds, I am just wondering, where is there accountability? Where is the accountability? I understand that because two enterprising reporters for the New York Times broke this story, and we probably would not know it now because this did not come from oversight hearings, it did not come from a Truman committee we should have in this Chamber investigating these things, but it was enterprising reporting that did this. I understand that. So because of that, we have a couple of people charged criminally.

The question I ask is, where is the accountability in the Department of Defense for deciding they are going to move $300 million through the hands of these two? Who did that? Who is responsible? Were they asked to account for it and to answer for it to the American taxpayers and the government for which they worked?

The answer is no, and that is what is wrong, and it is why I come to the Senate floor to recite this again. There is some good news. Finally, we have criminal charges that have been adjudicated, and the fact is, two people have pled guilty. But will this be happening today somewhere in the Pentagon? Will it? Did it happen with water that was sent by a contractor to all the military bases in Iraq, the nonpotable water that has more contamination than raw water from the Euphrates River? Did it happen there? The Army said no. The inspector general, at my request, investigated and said, yes, it did happen.

I can go on at length about dozens and dozens of similar circumstances. The question is, who is accountable for the spending of this money? Who has been made to be accountable? Who had to answer for it?

I ask the Secretary of Defense and others: Is there somebody made accountable for this situation? I understand there is criminal accountability for these two people. But is there accountability for the people who decided to employ them, despite all the evidence that this made no sense for our country?

I ask that question for a very important reason. We are going to have a debate about Afghanistan. I have very strong feelings about that issue as well. What we are seeing now is more and more contracting being done in Afghanistan just as the ratcheting up of contracts occurred in Iraq. More and more and more contracting. Who is minding the store? What kind of oversight can we expect? Or will we a week from now, a month from now, or a year from now read another story by a couple of good reporters who dug it out to say something happened that is unbelievable and the American people got defrauded to the tune of millions of dollars or, in this case, hundreds of millions of dollars.

All of us have responsibility at this point to make accountable those who allowed this sort of thing to happen and not just in this case. I have done 20 hearings now as chairman of the Policy Committee, which have helped to unearth a great amount of evidence of waste, fraud and abuse.

Well, I know my colleague in Oklahoma is patiently waiting, and I wish to give him an opportunity to speak. I only want to say this. This is a conclusion with criminal charges and guilty

pleas with respect to this issue, which I think is a metaphor for a much larger set of problems that we in the Congress and in the administration have a responsibility to address and to address soon. This issue of big Federal budget deficits is very real. They are unsustainable and dangerous. One of the ways to deal with them is to tighten our belts and start cutting spending where spending is being wasted. This was an unbelievable waste of the taxpayers' money, and my hat is off to the reporters who discovered it. I have been following it now for a couple years on the floor of the Senate, and at least I am able to say guilty pleas have been received.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, could we point out that we are to go to the bill at 4:30. I discussed with my colleague that we have 30 minutes on each side on the bill, and if we could go to the bill and then have my colleague speak on that portion of the bill, I think that would be the right approach.

Mr. President, I want to begin the discussion, then I believe my colleague, Senator Ensign, who has worked hard on this legislation, will follow. Then Senator Klobuchar who also has played a significant role in this will follow with comments. If others arrive, of course we want them to be able to involve themselves in the debate.

At a time when there is so much discussion about partisanship and how things don't work so well, this legislation, the cloture motion we vote on at 5:30 today, is bipartisan. Unlike some other discussions about partisanship, this is bipartisan. This legislation is called the Travel Promotion Act of 2009. It has 53 cosponsors. There are many Democrats and Republicans cosponsoring this legislation.

Just today the U.S. Chamber of Commerce sent a letter to all Members of Congress saying they strongly support this legislation. The Chamber urges Members to support the legislation and to vote for cloture.

Let me talk just for a moment about what this is. First of all, at a time when we need jobs, this is about jobs. At a time when we need to find ways to address budget deficits, this is one piece of legislation that is not going to cost money. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office scores it as actually a $425 million reduction in deficits over a 10-year period. Let me say again, it is pretty unusual. It is bipartisan, doesn't cost money--actually saves money--and addresses one of the most critical areas of our need, and that is jobs.

What is the Travel Promotion Act and why the concern? Let me describe

it this way. We all know travel and promoting travel and tourism is job creating. It creates jobs in many areas--yes, hotels and gas stations and restaurants and tourist attractions, but with visitors just traveling across our country means people are spending money. It creates a lot of jobs.

Let me talk especially about the issue of international or foreign travel to the United States. Did you know foreign travel is up very dramatically in this world? There is a great deal of foreign travel--56 million more overseas trips were taken in 2008 than were taken in 2000. So in 8 years the number of overseas trips increased by 56 million people. But at the same time, overseas travel to the United States has decreased. We had 634,000 fewer foreign visitors to the United States. It means a lot of people are traveling, but since the year 2000 we have had a loss in our share of international tourists.

Why is that important? Because when overseas travelers come to this country, on average they spend about $4,500. That supports a lot of jobs and a lot of businesses in this country. So why do we have 600,000-plus fewer visitors to the United States? In 2001, after the terrorist attack against our country, we tightened visa requirements and so on. The Iraq war occurred. There was a lot of concern by people that maybe the United States didn't want them to come: They have tightened visa requirements.

All of a sudden we discover that more people are traveling overseas, but they are not traveling here. Incidentally, the tourism that is happening internationally is not accidental. Most other countries are very aggressively going after the international traveler, saying: Come to our country.

Let me go through a list of just a few of those. Here is a big travel promotion campaign that talks about ``Come to Australia. Arrived looking for an experience to remember, departed with an adventure we'll never forget.''

The country of Ireland saying: ``Come to Ireland. Go where Ireland takes you.''

The list goes on. Virtually every country is saying we want foreign tourists to come to our country. ``Sweet secrets from Japan.'' Come and visit Japan.

We have all seen these. All of these countries are very aggressive. Come to France. I can't read the French piece down here, but I know what it says. It says come to France. Come here, be a part of what we are doing.

Belgium, here is the Belgian approach: ``Where fun is always in fashion. Visit Belgium.''

Finally, India. ``One special reason to visit India in 2009. Any time is a good time to visit the land of the Taj, but there is no time like now.''

Virtually every country is saying: Come to our country; come visit us. But we are not, and we propose that we do promote our country because it will create a lot of jobs. Just as important, when people come here and experience what this country is about, they leave with a wonderful impression about what America is.

So what we have put together is a piece of legislation that is bipartisan. It is funded by and large with an entry-exit fee--that is imposed by most other countries, by the way--a $10 fee on visa waiver countries, the people who come from those countries who visit our country. It is a minimal fee compared to what many other countries are charging. We establish with that fee a corporation for travel promotion, an independent nonprofit corporation governed by an 11- member board of directors appointed by the Secretary of Commerce. It sets up this travel promotion fund financed by a public-private matching program.

In short, this is a very simple proposition. It will not only create a lot of new jobs in this country at a time when we desperately need new jobs by saying to foreign travelers come to our country, be a part of what America has to offer you, come see our wonderful country, experience what America is about, we know when they come to this country they have an unbelievably good impression of what they have just seen--the greatest democracy on the face of this planet by far, and they experience the magic and wonders of this country.

What we are saying to them is, at a time when travel around the world is up, that is visitors to other countries, and ours is down, let's solve this problem and let's do it without breaking the bank. In fact, this will not cost money; this will save money. Let's do it by working in a bipartisan way on one of the significant problems we face in America, and that is the loss of jobs.

In case someone thinks perhaps there are just a few of us who think this is a good idea, here are a few examples of others who think this is a great idea. The Dallas Morning News:

The travel promotion act is a sensible first step toward

putting the welcome mat back on America's doorstep.

What a wonderful way to put it.

The Los Angeles Times:

Considering the U.S. spends hundreds of millions of dollars

on public diplomacy with dubious results and nearly nothing

on promoting tourism, it might do well to invest a little

money in wooing travelers.

Sacramento Bee:

This country needs to reclaim its stand as a global magnet

for visitors even in this post-9/11 climate--and Congress can

help by passing the Travel Promotion Act by the end of this

year.

Duluth News Tribune:

Ideas to bolster economic recovery without plunging the

Nation any deeper into debt would be welcomed by taxpayers

from coast to coast.

The Detroit Free Press:

Doesn't it make sense to encourage, at no cost to

taxpayers, foreign visitors to come here and leave us some

money? There is no good reason not to pass this bill.

I needn't go on. This is not rocket science. This is something our country should do. If, in fact, in a smaller and smaller world, more and more people are traveling, then why should fewer people travel to the United States of America? This ought to be one of the great destination places on the entire planet. I expect and hope most people want to come to this country and see what America has to offer. But I think post-9/11 what we have done with visas and so on, which we are now correcting and have corrected by and large--longer waiting times, we have made them shorter and so on--I think there was a notion out there somehow that the welcome mat doesn't exist. We are changing that. Republicans and Democrats can work together to change that. This legislation is good legislation, and I hope my colleagues will join me today in voting for cloture and moving this bill as soon as possible through the Senate, through the House, and to the President for signature.

When we do, those people who have had to come home to say to their spouse: Honey, I have lost my job--some of those millions of people, are going to be able to come home someday and say: I have a new job. There is some new activity going on in our State. I have a new job that relates to the substantial increase in international tourism to the United States.

That will be a good thing for our country. So as the principal author, along with Senator Ensign, of this legislation--and let me say also the chair of the Tourism Subcommittee, Senator Klobuchar--I am pleased to be able to work together with my colleagues to get this legislation completed today.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

I yield 10 minutes of our time to Senator Klobuchar.

How much time remains?

Mr. President, first, let me thank Senator Klobuchar for her work, and Senator Ensign. I think they have said what needs to be said.

If 48 million more people are now traveling internationally, foreign travelers moving around the world, 48 million more, but 600,000 fewer are traveling in the United States as foreign travelers, then something is wrong and we need to fix it.

I want to market this country to foreign travelers, to say: Come to all of America. Yes, come to see the Statue of Liberty, and come to see New York City and its vibrancy, and the Empire State Building, and Las Vegas, and Universal Studios in Los Angeles, and the Golden Gate Bridge. And in my State, the Pembina Gorge, the Red River Valley, and the Badlands

I would love to have foreign tourists come to experience the history and the culture the values of all of our country. I have told the story before on the floor of the Senate about Theodore Roosevelt. Theodore Roosevelt was in his home in New York when on the same day, on different floors of his home, his mother died and his wife died. In his diary for that day, there is a big mark. It is just an X for that day. He lost both his wife and his mother. Same day, different floors of his house.

A broken spirit, he went to what was then North Dakota and began to ranch in the Badlands of North Dakota, in what is now the Theodore Roosevelt National Park.

I would love to encourage foreign tourists to come to the heartland of America, the northern Great Plains, and see what restored the spirit of Theodore Roosevelt. What a great way to understand and see the history and the culture and values of this country. Isn't it interesting and alarming that 48 million more people are traveling around the world as foreign tourists and 600,000 fewer are traveling in the United States? The United States, which should be the premier destination for travel of anywhere on this Earth, and yet we have 633,000 fewer foreign travelers than we had 9 years ago. There is something not connected here. We propose to connect it with something that is bipartisan, something that doesn't cost money but

something that reduces the Federal budget deficit, something that creates jobs when we have lost so many, to be able to do that working together, to say: Here is something on which we can agree. Here is something we think would boost America's economic strength, here is something we believe would contribute to building new jobs, and, most importantly for me, here is something that when people come to our country and leave, it will allow them to leave America with a positive impression about what this country is, who the American people are, what they believe, what they practice. This is a remarkable place. To come here and then leave here after having visited America is to experience one of the great travel opportunities on this planet.

When we look at a problem and see that something is not working right, the question is, How do we fix it? I have said so often before, but I will say it again--because I know we have had some discussion today in opposition to this that I think mischaracterizes it--Mark Twain, when asked if he would engage in a debate, said: Of course, as long as I can take the negative side.

They said: We haven't even told you the subject.

He said: It doesn't matter. The negative side will take no preparation at all.

So it is with legislation. It is so much easier with no preparation to come and say: I am opposed to this; I don't support this; this won't work. The fact is, this is a problem that hurts this country. Losing our share of international tourism at a time when more people are traveling around the world, finding fewer people traveling to our country, that is a problem. We can fix it in a way that doesn't spend more, doesn't increase the Federal budget deficit, but attracts more people to this country and creates more jobs. What a remarkable piece of legislation that is a good investment in the future.

We have a lot to be proud of in this country, all of us. We take it for granted every day because we wake up in this country, but, boy, do we have a lot to be proud of. We want to show it off to foreign visitors.

Since 9/11, I understand there has been a notion somehow that it is harder to come to America. It is more hassle. What we want to say is: That is done. It is not a hassle. We invite you to come here. Come here and be a part of our experience.

Here is what we see in the Sidney Morning Herald: ``Coming to America Isn't Easy''; in the Guardian, United Kingdom: ``America--more hassle than it's worth?''; the Sunday Times of London: ``Travel to America? No thanks.'' These are all 2008 headlines. We want to say: This country has a welcome mat out for you. Come here. Experience what we have to experience in America. We invite you to be a part of our experience. We want you to come to the United States when you are considering traveling internationally.

That is what this legislation is about. This is not complicated. It is the right thing to do. It is the reason there are so many Democrats and Republicans who have joined together in something we think will strengthen the country.

I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

I should also mention that Senator Reid, along with Senator Ensign, has played a significant role in working on this legislation. That is very important to mention. Obviously, both come from a State that relies a great deal on tourism. My State's tourism industry is second in the State. It plays a very large role in every State, even though most of us don't have a traditional tourist destination city like Las Vegas, for example.

Early on Senators talked about how companies advertise because advertising works. It is the case that companies advertise only on behalf of their company. I just described circumstances of aggressive efforts for countries to advertise on behalf of their countries saying: Come to Italy, experience what Italy has to offer. Come to France. Come to India. The countries are very aggressive in saying: If you are thinking of traveling around this planet, take a look at this; come to see the Eiffel Tower.

Our country is not doing that. We are not involved in trying to reach out to people to say: You are welcome in this country. We have so much to offer, so much for you to see. We want you to come here and experience it, to understand it.

This legislation creates a public-private partnership in which our country will advertise to the world and say: Come to America. Isn't that the case with respect to advertising of companies versus countries?

If the Senator will yield further, the fact is, we have lost a lot of jobs in the deepest recession since the Great Depression. All of us are striving to find ways to put people back to work. There is not going to be some Big Bang theory by which everyone goes back to work. We can do this incrementally. We need manufacturing to be restored. We need tourism, a significant job creator. A lot of people don't understand that it is not some big hotel that benefits from tourism. In most cases, it is a small business someplace struggling to make a living. It is a lot of small businesses, rental car companies, and so on. That is why we have such faith that if we do what we say we can do in this legislation, we will put a lot of people back to work.

Mr. President, let me mention again the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has sent out a letter today in strong support of this legislation precisely because of the job-creating nature of this legislation.

Mr. President, I will vote to confirm the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. Let me explain why I am supporting her.

Judge Sotomayor's impressive life story is an American story of working hard and making the most of every opportunity. She grew up in a housing project in the South Bronx nurtured by a working mother who instilled in her the values of America. She understood that education was the key to unlocking the greatness that is available in our country. She won a scholarship to Princeton University, where she graduated with highest honors. But she did not stop there. She then attended one of America's finest law schools, where she also excelled and was a member of the prestigious Law Review.

In addition to her extraordinary academic achievements, Judge Sotomayor's many work experiences in the legal profession make her ideally suited to be a Supreme Court Justice. She has been a prosecutor, an attorney in private practice, a trial judge and an appellate court judge. She has been a Federal judge for more than 17 years. When she is confirmed, she will have had more judicial experience than any other Supreme Court Justice in more than 100 years, and she will be the only justice on this Supreme Court to have had experience as a trial judge. The knowledge she has gained over those many years will serve her, the Court, and our country well.

After reviewing her career on the bench and closely following her confirmation hearings, I have concluded that Judge Sotomayor is sincere in her commitment to apply the law, rather than to make the law. Her record shows that she cannot be fairly labeled ``left'' or ``right.'' For many years, she has looked at the facts and law of the many cases that have come before her and she has called them as she sees them without regard for anything else. Her record clearly demonstrates that she is a moderate, mainstream judge with great respect for the law, our Constitution, our country, and its institutions.

In my own meeting with Judge Sotomayor, I found her to be intelligent, measured, deliberate, and thoughtful. Judge Sotomayor assured me that she holds great respect for settled law. The more than 3,000 cases she has participated in support that conclusion as well.

This extensive record, and all of her experiences in life and law, likely explain the remarkable breadth and scope of people and organizations, many from opposite ends of the political and ideological spectrum, supporting her nomination. For example, the Chamber of Commerce and labor unions support her as well as numerous police organizations and defense lawyers. These are not natural allies, but they have seen what I have seen: a person of exceptional intelligence, wide-ranging experience, judicious temperament, and a commitment to even-handedly and fairly applying the law without fear or favor.

This is also demonstrated by her appointments to the bench. It is telling that Judge Sotomayor was first appointed to the Federal bench by President George H. W. Bush, who nominated her to the District Court for the

Southern District of New York. Judge Sotomayor was then promoted by President Clinton to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. It is rare indeed to have a judge nominated by Presidents of both parties, and this is a testament to Judge Sotomayor's intellect, impartiality, and judicial conduct.

A Supreme Court appointment is for life and many Justices serve for decades, but their influence does not stop there. The cases they write or participate in have an effect on the law of the land for many decades even after they leave the Court. That is why I take my duty as a Senator to confirm a President's nomination for the Court so seriously, as I have done here.

One of the things that makes our country great and an inspiration to so many throughout the world is our commitment to ``Equal Justice Under Law,'' which is carved in marble over the entrance to the Supreme Court. Equal justice means that, under our law, who you are does not matter; who you know or are connected to does not matter; how much money you have or do not have does not matter; the color of your skin, your ethnicity, your gender or any other personal characteristic does not matter. The facts of a case and the applicable law are all that matter in our justice system. That is what the phrase ``Equal Justice Under Law'' means in our country and to our country.

I am confident that ``Equal Justice Under Law'' will inform and animate Judge Sotomayor's decisions throughout her years on the Supreme Court. If one looks with an open and fair mind at the full breadth of Judge Sotomayor's inspiring life, extraordinary career and superb qualifications, as I have, it is clear that she has earned a place on the Supreme Court and I am proud to be supporting her nomination. I have no doubt that our country will be well served by her.

Mr. President, today I introduced a bill entitled 7th Generation Promise: Indian Youth Suicide Prevention Act, to address the crisis of youth suicide in Indian Country. I introduce this legislation on behalf of myself and Senators Johanns, Johnson, Udall of New Mexico, Baucus, and Tester, in hopes that it will help provide prevention and intervention services to Native American youth.

Over the past 25 years, youth suicides in Native American communities have reached epidemic levels. Suicide ranks as the second leading cause of death for Native American youth ages 15 to 35--a rate 3.5 times higher than the national average. In fact, adolescent Native American males have the highest suicide rate of any population group in the United States.

Over the years, the Indian Affairs Committee, which I chair, has held a series of hearings on the issue of Indian youth suicide. This past February, the Committee explored the progress made in youth suicide prevention in Indian Country. We heard from agencies and organizations, such as the Indian Health Service and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, SAMHSA, who provide worthy prevention and emergency response services.

During the February hearing, we also heard from a courageous 16-year- old young woman named Dana Lee Jetty who testified about the loss of her 14-year-old sister, Jami Rose Jetty. Her story illustrates the continued need for suicide prevention.

In November 2008, Dana Lee found her beautiful little sister, Jami Rose, hanging in her bedroom, on the Spirit Lake Reservation in North Dakota. Dana and Jami's Mom had done all the right things--noticing Jami was troubled, they took her to the doctor at the Indian Health Service clinic. The doctors dismissed the mom's concern and said Jami was just being a ``typical teenager.'' Dana told me that she believes her sister would be alive if there had been adequate mental health professionals to diagnose and treat Jami's depression. Jami Rose Jetty serves as a tragic example of the inadequate mental health services in Indian Country and why we need legislation like the one I introduced today.

This year, the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation, located in North Dakota and South Dakota, is experiencing epidemic levels of youth suicide. There have already been 10 suicides and an additional 53 attempted suicides. The majority of these suicides have been among tribal members under the age of 24. Clearly, we must do more for the mental health and suicide prevention in our Native American communities across the United States.

The bill I introduced includes three main sections to improve youth suicide prevention services in Indian Country: a youth telemental health demonstration project; language to streamline and improve the process by which Tribes apply for grants through SAMHSA; and encouragement of post-doctoral mental health intern programs in an effort to increase the availability of services in Indian Country.

The Indian Youth Telemental Health Demonstration Project Act has been introduced in previous Congresses. This project would authorize the Secretary of Health and Human Services to carry out a four-year demonstration project for the use of telemental health services in youth suicide prevention, intervention and treatment. Telemental health services refer to those health care services provided from a remote location through technological means. These types of services are especially important in remote, isolated communities like those in my home state of North Dakota where mental health professionals are scarce.

The bill also includes new language to enhance available mental health resources by addressing the many issues and barriers Tribes and tribal organizations face when applying for federal assistance through SAMHSA. For example, this provision requires SAMHSA to monitor the incidence of youth suicide in Indian Country, accept non-electronic grant applications from Tribes, give priority to disadvantaged tribal applicants with high rates of suicide, prohibit cost-sharing requirements, and prevent Tribes and tribal organizations from being required to apply through a state. In addition, this section requires states that apply for a SAMHSA grant using Tribal data to consult with Tribes and include them in any implemented programs.

Lastly, the bill includes encouragement for Tribes to use post- doctoral mental health professionals. Post-doctoral psychology and psychiatry interns are able to see patients and provide mental health services under the supervision of a certified mental health professional. The Veterans Administration is currently utilizing post- doctoral psychology intern programs, which have been successful in expanding the availability of mental health services to veterans. We need to promote innovative programs like this to increase the mental health services available in Indian Country.

The 7th Generation Promise in the bill's title is the Native American concept that we need to consider the impacts of our actions on our descendants seven generations in the future. Suicide is devastating our current generation of Native Americans, and we need to do something to protect them and

our Native Americans seven generations down the road.

I would like to thank Senator Johanns for working with me on this important piece of legislation. Health care, and especially mental health issues, remain a top priority for me as Chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee. I look forward to continuing this important work so that we may stop the high levels of youth suicide and other health disparities among Native Americans.

I would like to end by saying that one youth suicide is one tragedy too many. My hope is that passage of this bill will bring some aid to our Native American communities experiencing this crisis.

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

Mr. President, today I introduced a bill entitled 7th Generation Promise: Indian Youth Suicide Prevention Act, to address the crisis of youth suicide in Indian Country. I introduce this legislation on behalf of myself and Senators Johanns, Johnson, Udall of New Mexico, Baucus, and Tester, in hopes that it will help provide prevention and intervention services to Native American youth.

Over the past 25 years, youth suicides in Native American communities have reached epidemic levels. Suicide ranks as the second leading cause of death for Native American youth ages 15 to 35--a rate 3.5 times higher than the national average. In fact, adolescent Native American males have the highest suicide rate of any population group in the United States.

Over the years, the Indian Affairs Committee, which I chair, has held a series of hearings on the issue of Indian youth suicide. This past February, the Committee explored the progress made in youth suicide prevention in Indian Country. We heard from agencies and organizations, such as the Indian Health Service and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, SAMHSA, who provide worthy prevention and emergency response services.

During the February hearing, we also heard from a courageous 16-year- old young woman named Dana Lee Jetty who testified about the loss of her 14-year-old sister, Jami Rose Jetty. Her story illustrates the continued need for suicide prevention.

In November 2008, Dana Lee found her beautiful little sister, Jami Rose, hanging in her bedroom, on the Spirit Lake Reservation in North Dakota. Dana and Jami's Mom had done all the right things--noticing Jami was troubled, they took her to the doctor at the Indian Health Service clinic. The doctors dismissed the mom's concern and said Jami was just being a ``typical teenager.'' Dana told me that she believes her sister would be alive if there had been adequate mental health professionals to diagnose and treat Jami's depression. Jami Rose Jetty serves as a tragic example of the inadequate mental health services in Indian Country and why we need legislation like the one I introduced today.

This year, the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation, located in North Dakota and South Dakota, is experiencing epidemic levels of youth suicide. There have already been 10 suicides and an additional 53 attempted suicides. The majority of these suicides have been among tribal members under the age of 24. Clearly, we must do more for the mental health and suicide prevention in our Native American communities across the United States.

The bill I introduced includes three main sections to improve youth suicide prevention services in Indian Country: a youth telemental health demonstration project; language to streamline and improve the process by which Tribes apply for grants through SAMHSA; and encouragement of post-doctoral mental health intern programs in an effort to increase the availability of services in Indian Country.

The Indian Youth Telemental Health Demonstration Project Act has been introduced in previous Congresses. This project would authorize the Secretary of Health and Human Services to carry out a four-year demonstration project for the use of telemental health services in youth suicide prevention, intervention and treatment. Telemental health services refer to those health care services provided from a remote location through technological means. These types of services are especially important in remote, isolated communities like those in my home state of North Dakota where mental health professionals are scarce.

The bill also includes new language to enhance available mental health resources by addressing the many issues and barriers Tribes and tribal organizations face when applying for federal assistance through SAMHSA. For example, this provision requires SAMHSA to monitor the incidence of youth suicide in Indian Country, accept non-electronic grant applications from Tribes, give priority to disadvantaged tribal applicants with high rates of suicide, prohibit cost-sharing requirements, and prevent Tribes and tribal organizations from being required to apply through a state. In addition, this section requires states that apply for a SAMHSA grant using Tribal data to consult with Tribes and include them in any implemented programs.

Lastly, the bill includes encouragement for Tribes to use post- doctoral mental health professionals. Post-doctoral psychology and psychiatry interns are able to see patients and provide mental health services under the supervision of a certified mental health professional. The Veterans Administration is currently utilizing post- doctoral psychology intern programs, which have been successful in expanding the availability of mental health services to veterans. We need to promote innovative programs like this to increase the mental health services available in Indian Country.

The 7th Generation Promise in the bill's title is the Native American concept that we need to consider the impacts of our actions on our descendants seven generations in the future. Suicide is devastating our current generation of Native Americans, and we need to do something to protect them and

our Native Americans seven generations down the road.

I would like to thank Senator Johanns for working with me on this important piece of legislation. Health care, and especially mental health issues, remain a top priority for me as Chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee. I look forward to continuing this important work so that we may stop the high levels of youth suicide and other health disparities among Native Americans.

I would like to end by saying that one youth suicide is one tragedy too many. My hope is that passage of this bill will bring some aid to our Native American communities experiencing this crisis.

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

Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Indian Affairs will meet on Thursday, August 6, 2009, at 2:15 p.m. in Room 628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building to conduct a business meeting on S.J. Res. 14, a joint resolution to acknowledge a long history of official depredations and ill-conceived policies by the Federal Government regarding Indian tribes and offer an apology to all Native Peoples on behalf of the United States; H.R. 1129, a bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to provide an annual grant to facilitate an iron working training program for Native Americans; and S. 443, a bill to transfer certain land to the United States to be held in trust for the Hoh Indian Tribe, to place land into trust for the Hoh Indian Tribe, and for other purposes to be followed immediately by a hearing on S. 1011, the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2009.

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

Mr. President, I applaud the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee for their efforts in putting together a thoughtful, balanced reauthorization of the Small Business Innovations Research--SBIR--and Small Business Technology Transfer--STTR--programs.

I know the committee is in negotiations with the House trying to reach a good reconciliation with the right parameters. I hope they do, so that we have these programs in place for years to come instead of another short-term extension.

SBIR was set up in 1982 and requires 11 Federal departments and agencies like the Department of Defense, the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation to set aside 2.5 percent of their research and development budgets for small businesses, which is over $2 billion per year. STTR sets aside another 0.3 percent of R&D for small businesses to work in partnership with university and institutional researchers. Both programs have been highly successful, helping propel small business growth, and develop and commercialize the innovations that are the backbone of our economy.

I wanted to share a few facts about small business for the record.

According to the Small Business Administration, small businesses annually create between 60 and 80 percent of the net new jobs in America.

Small businesses produce on average 13 to 14 times more patents per employee than large patenting firms.

Small business employs about 38 percent of the scientists and engineers in America, up from only 6 percent in 1978.

Despite all this growth and stellar track record, small business receives only about 4 percent of Federal extramural research dollars. That needs to change. Small business has proven they can do Federal R&D as well as or better than large business, and they deserve more space at the table.

Small business is going to be the engine that pulls the country out of this recession, like it has so many times in the past. Looking beyond the recession, small business will again develop the innovative technologies in which America consistently leads the world. The Senate bill wisely supports and extends our support for small business's role in growing a vibrant national economy.

In my own State of North Dakota, SBIR has helped fund a number of innovations, and I wanted to mention a few of them.

The Technology Applications Group of Grand Forks, located in the Red River Valley Research Corridor, invented the Tagnite coating system through Army and Navy SBIR funds. The technology allows the military to coat magnesium alloys for parts, ships, helicopters and airplanes in a way that is much less toxic than old processes, cuts down on corrosion, and saves on maintenance.

Agsco of Grand Forks received an SBIR grant that led to development of the SCOIL and SUN-IT II products that enhance crop herbicide effectiveness. Agsco turned their SBIR grants into two products with a great deal of commercial impact.

Dakota Technologies of Fargo has received multiple SBIR grants, including two that led to development of BEAM, or ballast exchange assurance meter, which measures ballast water in ships to make sure they don't contain harmful species or contaminants. BEAM is currently in a pilot program with the Coast Guard.

Back in 2002, I secured funding to develop telepharmacy technology to connect pharmacists directly with patients and pharmacy technicians regardless of their location. Technologies like this have been a boon to rural communities because they allow them to compete on a level playing field with urban areas.

The USDA just awarded Telepharmacy Concepts of Dickinson, ND, with an $80,000 Phase I SBIR award that will allow them to research whether telepharmacy technology could be used for medication therapy management, which is a way to provide patient education, increase medication compliance and improve health care outcomes.

Praxis Strategy Group of Grand Forks has received SBIR awards nine times, including grants from the USDA to develop strategic processes like the High Performance Community Initiative and the Enterprise Homesteading Program that help communities, especially small communities, attract entrepreneurs, develop dynamic economies, and market themselves.

While I am happy with the Senate reauthorization, I am concerned about some of the provisions in the House version we are trying to reconcile it with.

First, the House bill opens participation in SBIR to companies that are majority-owned by venture capital firms. I have nothing against venture capital companies, but the small businesses that they own have already shown they can successfully attract capital in the private market.

SBIR was intended to help small businesses without the connections available to do that. I think the House bill is trying to fix something that isn't broken.

Second, given the long-term success of SBIR and STTR, I think it only makes sense to increase the share of agency funds set aside for small business as the Senate's bill gradually does.

American business has changed dramatically since SBIR was created. Since 1978, the share of scientists and engineers working for small businesses has, as I said, increased from 6 to 38 percent. Funding for SBIR and STTR needs to increase to reflect that reality. I am concerned that the House bill keeps their allocations where they have been for 27 years, despite the successful track record of the programs. Given the figures I have quoted previously, increasing the set-aside from 2.5 to 3.5 percent is the very least we should do.

Small business is the core of our country's economy, and we have here a program that has a strong track record of encouraging growth and innovation in that area. I urge the program's reauthorization with the principles of Senate bill S. 1233.

Yes, that is our intent. This legislation would spur innovation and improve modeling and simulation efforts.

I agree that high performance computing applications are important research tools that can help lead to breakthroughs in energy production. North Dakota State University, NDSU, uses computational modeling and simulations to help analyze theories and validate experiments that are dangerous, expensive or impossible to conduct. Through its Center for High Performance Computing, NDSU is collaborating with the Department of Energy and its national laboratories on a number of energy research projects.

The capabilities of VMASC, University of Utah, North Dakota State University and other institutions should receive due consideration as the Department of Energy executes this provision.

(At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. President, we are waiting to proceed on the legislation that has come from the Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water, which I chair. We are on the bill, but we are waiting for amendments and discussion.

But I want to make a point. We have had people coming to the floor of the Senate yesterday, now this morning, incessantly over a long period of time, talking about health care. Health care is, obviously, very important; no question about that. The relentless increase in the cost of health care hurts families. It hurts business. It hurts government programs that provide for health care. So we need to do something about that.

But it is interesting. What I hear on the floor of the Senate from the critics of these issues is: What is wrong? What is wrong? Well, it does not take a lot of energy or a lot of time to determine what is wrong and be a critic. I understand that.

I have often told the story of Mark Twain, who was asked to debate once, and he said: Of course I will be engaged in that debate, as long as I can take the negative side.

They said: Well, we have not even told you the subject of the debate.

He said: Oh, it doesn't matter. The negative side will take no preparation.

So it is with these discussions on the floor that I have just heard a moment ago and heard all day yesterday as I sat here on the floor, talking about what is wrong. Well, do you know what, we know what is wrong. What is wrong is that we have this relentless rise of health care costs. We spend more on health care than anybody else in the world, by far, and we rank somewhere around 41st in life expectancy. We spend twice as much per person than almost everybody else in the world spends on health care.

I notice that all those critics who come out here talking about what is wrong with this plan or that plan never talk about prescription drugs because most of those who have been out here criticizing the various plans are people who vote against legislation to put downward pressure on prescription drugs. Yet one of the fastest rising areas of health care costs is prescription drugs.

Let me, if I might, ask unanimous consent to show on the floor of the Senate two bottles that would contain prescription drugs.

These two bottles I hold in my hand, which I have shown many times, contain Lipitor. It is medicine produced in Ireland and then shipped all around the world. This Lipitor, as you can see, comes from identical bottles. The same tablet, the same medicine, produced in the same plant by the same company, FDA-approved by our Food and Drug administration in our country, is put in two different bottles. One is shipped to the United States, this one, and the other is shipped to Canada. What is the difference? Well, there is no difference in the medicine. It came from the same place, produced by the same company. The difference is price. The Canadians get to pay half the price the Americans pay.

It is not just Lipitor, the most popular cholesterol-lowering drug that exists out there. It is not just Lipitor. It is prescription drug after prescription drug. The American people get to pay the highest prices in the world. You want to talk about how you cut health care costs? How about taking a whack at this and saying it is not fair that the American people should pay the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs. Why are they required to pay the highest price in the world? Because there is kind of a sweetheart deal in law that says the only entity that can reimport prescription drugs is the drug manufacturer itself.

Much of the ingredients in these drugs come from all around the world--China, just as an example. The manufacturers can produce these drugs in Ireland, using ingredients from all around the world, and then bring them in to sell to the American consumer. But the American consumer cannot access the same FDA-approved drug sold in virtually every other industrial country at a fraction of the price the American consumer is charged.

Why, when we hear these critics come to the floor on health care issues, do we not hear them suggest: Here is an area where we could substantially cut costs and give the American consumer the opportunity everybody else has; that is, to shop for these FDA-approved drugs in areas where you see much lower prices?

The pharmaceutical industry will say: Well, if you allow the American people to do that and if we can't charge the highest prices to the American people for prescription drugs, we will not have the money to do our research to find new drugs. Well, that is not true. The fact is, the pharmaceutical industry spends more money on research in Europe than they do in the United States and in virtually every European country, the European consumers get to pay less money for the same drugs that American consumers are now charged.

A bipartisan group of us has offered legislation to give the American consumer the right to access these lower cost prescription drugs from areas where you can pay a fraction of the price for the identical drug the American consumer pays the highest price in the world for. But we have a staunch bunch of folks in this Chamber who support the pharmaceutical industry and who decide that the American people shouldn't have this right. I would say to those who are the critics of virtually anything anybody talks about in health care: Maybe you ought to decide to support those of us who have introduced bipartisan legislation to deal with the issue of the prescription drug prices in which the American people are charged the highest prices in the world. It is not fair; it has gone on too long; and it needs to be changed.

With respect to health care, generally, this issue is one of those issues that is very important. We are in the middle of a very deep recession. I think job one in this country, by far, is to put the country back on track so people can get back on payrolls, get back to work, and have jobs. That makes almost everything else possible. This is the deepest recession since the Great Depression, and we have a lot of work to do. This President inherited a mess, no question about that. He inherited a $1.3 trillion deficit this year. It is now going to be $1.9 trillion because the President advanced and the Congress passed an economic recovery program to try to stimulate the economy. But we need to get this economy back on track and then we need to begin trimming back these budget deficits. We cannot, for any length of time, continue to provide a level of government the American people are either unable or unwilling to pay for. That is not a path that is sustainable. It is not a path that works. But the President, when he took office, said there are a number of other things we need to do--one of which is to try to get some control over these escalating health care costs.

I don't know exactly how this is going to end up. I don't know what plan might or might not exist at the end of the day, but I think Congress is going to find a way through this. I think it is useful and important and productive for us to be working and working hard to see: What are the solutions? How do we put downward pressure on prices? How do we try to provide broader coverage for those who don't now have health care coverage? I think we can do this. It might well be it has to be done in a couple phases, the first of which is to put downward pressure on the pricing and the second of which is to extend coverage. However we do it, we need to decide that health care costs are rising far more rapidly than is sustainable. They blow a hole in the federal budget deficit because the Federal Government, through Medicare and through Medicaid, is the largest consumer of health care, so we don't have much choice but to find a way to do this.

I understand there is a lot in this health care system that wants to protect what is, one of which is prescription drugs. I mentioned this prescription drug called Lipitor. Most people would know the name of this. Why? Because when they leaf through Newsweek or Time magazine, they will see a full-page ad for Lipitor. When they shave in the morning or brush their teeth in the morning, if they have a television near their bathroom, they will understand about Lipitor. They will understand about the purple pill. They will understand about prescription drugs because relentless advertising is driven toward the consumer to say: Go ask your doctor if you shouldn't be taking this drug. Go check with your doctor. Isn't the purple pill right for you? There is relentless consumer advertising for something you can't buy unless a doctor believes you need it and a doctor prescribes it for you. Is that something we ought to take care of maybe? I think so.

There are a whole range of areas that I think are very important in health care that we need to try to do something about. I think we can. It is horribly complicated, very difficult, a very heavy lift, and we need to do it in a way that first and foremost puts downward pressure on health care pricing. The fact is we cannot and should not be spending twice as much as anybody else in the world per capita on health care only to find out that we rank 41st in life expectancy. That means we are spending much more than anybody else and not getting the outcome or the results.

So I would say to the people--including this morning, the first thing out of the box is the critics of health care, once again, relentlessly on the floor telling us what is wrong. As I have said, Mark Twain knew the negative side requires no preparation. So I am not sure these are well-prepared arguments, but they are certainly relentless. It is nice to hear what is wrong. Maybe as 100 Senators who dress up in suits in the morning, we could come and spend the entire day talking about what is right. This is a great country, one of which we have the privilege to live in freedom, we have the privilege to be engaged in public debate. Maybe let's spend a little more time trying to figure out what is right about this country and find out what kinds of solutions can unite us rather than divide us and find out how we get the best of each rather than the worst of both when we talk about the political parties.

If we can do that, maybe we will advance this country's interests.

The fact is we all stand in the same hole. It is a very deep economic hole, the deepest since the Great Depression, and we will all be well advised, it seems to me, to find ways to begin working together to address these issues.

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

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I will not object, let me further ask unanimous consent that following the presentation of this amendment, we have a unanimous consent agreement to set aside this amendment for a Democratic amendment that is about to be offered.

Mr. President, I make a point of order that a quorum is not present.

If the Senator will yield, let me say that I happen to be a cosponsor of the amendment. It is being offered to the Energy and Water appropriations bill. There may well be a rule XVI against it. It appears to be legislating on an appropriations bill.

Before the Senator expands on his remarks, I think he and Senator Warner have offered a constructive idea, one that I support and have cosponsored prior to it being on the floor. I think it is useful for Senators to hear a complete description of the proposal. If it is not resolved on this bill--and it probably will not be--my hope is it will be resolved on another piece of legislation.

Mr. President, let me make a point because we have heard a lot of discussion about health care. My colleague from Oregon and my colleague from Utah talked about this yesterday and today and I think it is important to point out.

When people talk about the choices Members of Congress have, I think it is giving the impression that somehow Members of Congress have some gold-plated health care system that other Federal employees do not have. In fact, I believe the choices available to Members of Congress are the choices available in the Federal Employees Health Benefit system for millions of other Federal employees.

The reason I make that point is we have had a lot of people talk about the choices Members of Congress have with their health plan. This Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan is available to all Federal employees. All Federal employees have the same choices, by and large, and those are the choices Members of Congress have.

Last weekend, I had several people talk to me about the extraordinary health insurance Members of Congress have, and I think part of that comes from this discussion about Members of Congress have all these choices. It is very important for people to understand that we have the same health care plan other Federal employees have--millions of them-- and the same choices they have. I just wanted to make sure the Record shows that because I think it is important.

Mr. President, we are ready to clear several cleared amendments, so I ask unanimous consent to immediately consider amendment No. 1846, which is already pending.

My understanding is the amendment is cleared on both sides. I believe there is no further debate, and I ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up amendments Nos. 1844 and 1845, en bloc; further, I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading of the amendments.

I believe there is no further debate. These are technical amendments that have been cleared by both sides, and I ask for their immediate consideration.

Mr. President, I believe we will have an amendment by the Senator from Nebraska in a few minutes. But let me say, with the Senator from Utah, we need to have Senators come over and offer amendments. If you have amendments you want to add to this bill, offer, and debate, we expect you to be here. Ultimately, those who have amendments and don't come to offer them are probably going to be precluded at some point because we will move to complete this bill.

We have sat here the day before yesterday, yesterday, and now today. This is a very important piece of legislation that deals with the energy and water projects across the country, and we want to complete this bill, preferably this evening, if we can. In order to do that, we need to at least have some semblance of cooperation, which has been little evident, at least in the past couple days.

I would say to the Senator from Utah there is a 1 p.m. filing deadline today. But the fact is we already have amendments filed but aren't offered. So I expect we will get additional amendments filed. The key is to get people down here to offer their amendments, but there is a 1 p.m. filing deadline.

The cloture motion was filed last evening, and I understand why the Senator from Nevada, the majority leader, filed it. I don't think he had much choice. We bring an appropriations bill to the floor that has very widespread support and then it largely comes to a standstill. It would not make much sense for us to be here in this position all week.

I think Senator Reid had very little choice but to file a cloture motion. My hope is we would not need it. If people will come and offer their amendments, we will work with them. Senator Bennett and I will work to accept the amendments we can and get the votes and perhaps this evening get this bill completed.

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

Mr. President, we are awaiting some word from Senator Alexander. He was here earlier this morning to offer an amendment. We indicated we would very much like to have a vote at 11:30 this morning. We are trying to contact Senator Alexander and his staff. There will be a budget point of order against the amendment offered by Senator Alexander, so the vote would be on the point of order that will be made with respect to the budget.

Senator Bennett and I hope we can get this vote so we can get people to the floor and determine which amendments are going to be offered and when. The majority leader has been extraordinarily patient. He is trying to schedule bills to the floor of the Senate. We bring an Energy and Water appropriations bill to the floor of the Senate, people say they have amendments but they do not come to the floor to offer them, so the majority leader filed cloture last evening, a cloture motion that will ripen tomorrow.

He did not have much choice but to do that, and I think what is happening today demonstrates the requirement that the majority leader had to file a cloture motion. It would be far better for everybody if we can dispose of the amendments.

I think we have three amendments dealing with TARP funds. I think we can dispose of the three of them. If we can have Senator Alexander come and reach an agreement on time and have a vote at 11:30, at least we would at that point get Senators to the floor, dispose of that amendment on a budget point of order. There will be points of order against the other two TARP amendments as well--different points of order, I might add.

Mr. President, we appreciate the cooperation of Senator Alexander. I know he cares a lot about his amendment. As I indicated, there will be a budget point of order that lies against the amendment. I will make that point of order, but then we will have a recorded vote on that point of order. My hope would be that we can do that at 11:30 this morning, for the information of other Senators and their staffs, and we will determine that when Senator Alexander arrives on the floor momentarily.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now resume consideration of the Alexander amendment No. 1862 and that Senator Dorgan be recognized to raise a Budget Act 302(f) point of order against the amendment; that once Senator Alexander has moved to waive the relevant point of order, debate on the waiver extend to 11:25 a.m., with the time equally divided and controlled between Senators Dorgan and Alexander or their designees; that at 11:25 a.m., the Senate proceed to vote on the motion to waive, with no amendments in order to the amendment during its pendency.

Mr. President, I make a point of order that the pending amendment violates section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

How much time remains?

I understand what Senator Alexander wants to do. I have some of the same instincts. The President does as well. I don't want the Federal Government running America's corporations. We want to divest as quickly as we can. We want the companies to recover. But whatever we do here, we need to do it in a way that protects the interests of the taxpayers. Theirs are the interests that are at risk. To set a date within 1 year does not protect the interests of the taxpayers.

I happen to support a Corker amendment. I was a cosponsor of the Corker amendment that talks about the establishment of trustees, three trustees to actually be engaged in running these companies so the government is not running them. It talks about liquidating that trust by December 2011. But they would submit a report to Congress. That liquidation would not happen unless it maximizes the profitability of the company and the return to the shareholder. That is one thing missing in the Alexander amendment, the question of what maximizes the return to the American taxpayer. They are the ones who are at risk. What do we do to maximize the return, or are we going to leave tens of billions of dollars on the table because somebody simply wants to pass a piece of legislation with an artificial end date?

I don't disagree with the intent of wanting to get out from under this issue of the Federal Government being engaged in these corporations. That is why I cosponsored the Corker amendment.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

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

Mr. President, what is the pending business?

Mr. President, pursuant to the Lott precedent, I make a point of order that the amendment is not germane.

Mr. President, what is the pending business?

I make a point of order that the amendment is legislation on appropriations.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending business and call up amendment No. 1855.

I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Madam President, this amendment has been cleared on both sides. I believe there is no further debate. I ask for its immediate consideration.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

While Senator Bennett and I await our colleagues to offer amendments on the underlying appropriations bill, I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business for 10 minutes.

Madam President, our country is in a very deep economic hole, the most significant economic decline since the Great Depression. Much of it is attributable to the fact that we have created an economy in recent years, especially the last two decades, in which we have responsible business men and women engaged in casino-like gambling. They do it under the rubric of business.

In 1994, I wrote a cover story for the Washington Monthly magazine titled ``Very Risky Business.'' The subtitle of that article was about the banks trading very risky derivatives, which I said I believed could lead to taxpayers being on the hook for a bailout. That was 15 years ago. At that point, there was $16 trillion of notional value in derivatives. And banks, even then, which prompted me to write the article, were trading very risky derivatives on their own proprietary accounts, which I believed was unbelievably ignorant of the risk involved.

The $16 trillion in notional value of derivatives exploded way beyond anyone's expectation. Then at the same time that the trading of derivatives was exploding, new instruments were being developed, credit default swaps and CDOs and all kinds of exotic instruments to be traded back and forth, creating a dramatic amount of additional risk.

Even as that was occurring, we saw the development of a subprime loan scandal in which we were watching brokers and mortgage banks provide entreaties to those who had homes or those who wished to buy homes: Come and get a mortgage from us. You have bad credit, slow pay, no pay, you have been bankrupt, come to us. We would like to give you a loan. Subprime home loans--some called liars loans--you don't even have to tell the person giving you the loan what your income is. By the way, you don't have to pay any principle. We will wrap that around the backside, just pay interest. Can't pay interest, then name your own payment. Don't want to do that, then don't pay any principle and don't pay all your interest. We will wrap it around the backside, and you don't even have to describe what your income is. By the way, when you get a mortgage from us, we will not tell you it is going to reset in 2- 3 years because we are giving you a 2-percent teaser rate right now, which means your home loan payment will be way down here, and it is going to look good. But the reset that will happen in 24 or 36 months, you will never be able to make the payments.

Everybody was fat and happy, making a lot of money putting out bad loans and then slicing them up into mortgage-backed securities and then trading them up to the hedge funds and investment banks, and everybody was making a lot of money, not asking any questions. Then the whole thing collapsed. And it is derivatives, it is swaps, it is mortgage- backed securities. It all collapsed in a sea of greed with unbelievable risk, and it brought down with it some of America's largest financial institutions.

I describe all of that gambling and all of that risk because something else happened last year that has the American people concerned and worried--and they should be wondering: What was the cause of it?

Here is what happened last year. I have this chart in the Chamber that shows the price of crude oil. It actually went from $60 a barrel, in October of 2006, up to $147 a barrel in July of 2008. It went up like a Roman candle, and then came right back down. By the way, the same folks who made the money on the upside made the money going back the other way, starting last July. It was unbelievable speculation in a market called the oil futures market.

This is not an abstract graph. This means right up here someplace, as shown on the chart, every American who went to the gas pump to fill up their vehicle with gasoline was paying through the nose--$4, $4.50 a gallon.

So the question for them, and the question for other users--airlines, for example, were hemorrhaging in red ink, unable to pay the cost of this kind of oil price--the question was: What has caused all of this? What has resulted in this unbelievable spike in oil prices?

The answer? An orgy of speculation in the oil futures market by interests that were never before--at that point--manipulating that marketplace. Investment banks, for the first time, were actually buying oil storage and holding it off the marketplace until the price rose, as an example.

The oil futures market, it is estimated, was populated in terms of the trades by somewhere between two-thirds to three-fourths of the trades coming from speculators--not people who were moving the physical commodity back and forth, at least people who would want to sell the physical commodity to somebody who wanted to buy the physical commodity because they want oil. Instead, it was speculators who were simply betting on this. They could have gone to Las Vegas. They did not need to. They were able to go to the oil futures market and make a lot of money going up and a lot of money going down; and, meanwhile, the victims were the American drivers who had to fill their gas tanks with gasoline.

I am describing this because yesterday there was a hearing in this town by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, a commission that has largely been dead from the neck up for some while, uninterested in regulating--despite the fact that is their charge--sitting on their hands, doing nothing. And all of last year while this was going on, while the price of oil was going up, up, up, the CFTC largely explained it away as saying: Well, this is supply and demand. That is what is going on.

There is another agency other than the Commodity Futures Trading Commission that did not do its job. This is an agency we are actually funding. Senator Bennett and I are actually funding it in this bill. It is called EIA, the Energy Information Administration. It has several hundred people working there. It is a very important agency. It provides substantial amounts of information to our country, to policymakers, about what is happening with energy.

I want to show you what has happened with the EIA. We spend about $110 million a year on this agency with several hundred people. They are good people, smart people, the best in the business, we assume. Here is what happened. In May of 2007, they had to make an estimate. That is what they do. They make an estimate: What is the price of oil going to be? Well, they started here, as shown on the graph, and they said: Here is where we think the price of oil is going, right that way. So in May of 2007--I do not know what they had to eat back then, but something was affecting the brain. Here is what happened to the price of oil. Here is where they estimated the price of oil would be.

These are smart people. These are the best. We are spending a lot of money getting their advice. So let's pick January of 2008. They made a new estimate: Here is where we think the price of oil is going to go. Well, the price of oil did not do this. The price of oil went like this--almost straight up. So what did they get wrong? In April of 2008: Here is what we think the price of oil will be. Here is what it was.

My point is, this agency, along with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, would come to our committee at a hearing, and I would say: What is it that you get it so unbelievably wrong? They said: Well, it is supply and demand.

That is total rubbish. The fact is, even while this was happening, the supply was going up and demand was going down, which meant that the price of oil would not be going up like a Roman candle. In fact, the price would be moderating. Instead, speculators captured that market. That is why EIA got it so wrong. They did not have the foggiest idea what they were doing. Supply and demand--total nonsense. But we know what happened to these prices.

The reason I want to discuss this for a moment is because yesterday the Wall Street Journal had a story. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission--this is the commission that last year spent all of their time telling us this was just supply and demand. We knew better. But either they knew better as well and would not admit it or they did not know better. That agency was insisting it was supply and demand. Well, the very same agency now, with a new head, is going to issue a report next month, according to the Wall Street Journal, ``suggesting speculators played a significant role in driving wild swings in oil prices.''

Three people in my hometown cafe--I come from a small town of 300 people--3 people, over a strong cup of coffee, knew that last year. Wild swings in oil prices as a result of speculators.

Last year, the same U.S. futures market agency pinned oil price swings primarily on supply and demand. But the new report will say that analysis was based on ``deeply flawed data.''

So the question is, What does all this mean? It means if we are going to have some impact on an economy where we put it back on some solid foundation, we have to have markets that work, and we have to have regulators who are not blind.

I happen to think the free market system is the best system of allocating goods and services that I know of. I taught economics ever so briefly in college, and I always say I was able to overcome that, nonetheless, and lead a productive life. But the field of economics is something that is so important in terms of understanding how markets work. I believe the free market system is an incredibly good system-- not perfect. The free market system needs effective oversight and regulation from time to time. That means we have regulators who are supposed to be wearing the striped shirts, blowing the whistle, and calling the fouls because, yes, there are fouls in the free market system.

Go back and ask Teddy Roosevelt, when he was a big trust buster. What was he doing? He was busting those interests that were trying to subvert the free market system. The same thing happens today. We have interests--and I described it earlier--that want to subvert the system by getting engaged in substantial risk and establishing mechanisms by which they can control a market at the expense of the rest of the American people.

That is what I believe has happened in the oil futures market. The oil futures market is very important, and we need to make it work the right way. It ought to work responding to the urges of supply and demand. But, regrettably, that has not been the case. My hope is now the Commodity Futures Trading Commission will be able to take the kind of action necessary to straighten this market out.

Every market needs liquidity. That means some speculators will play a role in the market. But when speculators capture the market, and begin to play the kind of games that were played last year, that has a profound impact on this country's economy. We should expect the agencies that are hired to do the regulatory oversight do their jobs, and do it properly. That has not been the case for some while.

So my hope will be--with the new report coming out that will finally assign the responsibility of excess speculation in this perversion of the marketplace--my hope will be we will have effective regulators who will take action. What should that action be? My own view is the Commodity Futures Trading Commission should designate a distinction between the traders in this marketplace: those who are truly trading a physical commodity because they are engaged in the marketplace because that is the business they are in and those who are just speculators. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission could at that point determine what kind of margin requirements, what kind of speculative limits should exist so that activity does not subvert the marketplace.

Let me be quick to say there are people who will listen to me, and who hear what I say, and they will say: Do you know what. You don't have the foggiest idea what you are talking about. All of this system works. None of that which you describe existed. All of that risk by the smartest people in the room, the top investment banks that took on this massive amount of risk, the investment banks that were buying oil storage, to buy oil and take it off the market until it goes up in price--all of that is just business.

It is not just business. Just business is running a business the right way. Does anybody believe it was just business to have the biggest financial enterprises in the country run into the ditch because of bad behavior by those who were running the companies--by the way, some of whom are still running the same companies?

By the way, with respect to solutions, does anybody think it is just business to decide we had institutions in this country that were too big to fail--that loaded up with risk and then failed--and the taxpayer is told they cannot be allowed to fail, they are too big, and you have to bail them out? And now we say to those same businesses: We are not going to get rid of ``too big to fail.'' In fact, we are going to allow you to merge with other firms, which makes you much too big to fail-- too much bigger to fail.

We have a lot of work to do this year to address these issues and address some of the causes that caused the economic collapse last year. I want us to put this economy back on track. First and foremost, it starts with jobs and restoring confidence. Confidence is everything about this economy. When people have confidence, they will do the things that are expansive to this economy: buy clothes, buy a car, take a trip, buy a house. That expands the economy. When they are not confident, they do exactly the opposite.

I want the American people to have confidence. I want them to have confidence in believing that Federal agencies that hire regulators are going to look over the shoulder and provide the oversight to make sure this is not going to happen again, to make sure someone is not going tp subvert a marketplace that makes the rest of the American people victims.

All of this, in my judgment, with good government, can be done. But it will not be done if we have regulators who boast about being willfully blind. It will be done if we understand our responsibility to make sure the free market system is indeed free.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, it is nearly 2 o'clock on Wednesday. We have been on this bill since Monday. Senator Bennett and I have spent a lot of time on the floor waiting for amendments to be offered. We have had several and we appreciate that, but we have many filed but not offered.

I know the majority leader has filed a cloture motion which would ripen tomorrow, so we would have a cloture vote tomorrow. Our hope has been we would not get to that point.

Inasmuch as we have waited and waited very patiently for Senators who do have amendments that they wish to offer but have not come to offer them, Senator Bennett and I have talked about perhaps going to third reading this afternoon at 5 o'clock. So I ask, if there are those Senators and/or staff who have amendments they wish to have considered on this legislation they would keep that in mind.

We have a couple of hours here. Senator Bennett and I have talked about going to third reading by 5 o'clock. I would ask people to come and offer

amendments, let's have debates on the amendments and have votes and see if we can resolve this legislation this afternoon.

I make a point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. President, I would have no objection. We are limiting morning statement business up to 10 minutes. We are on the business of the energy and water appropriations bill, waiting for amendments to be filed. So we have a general order on this bill that morning business speeches will be 10 minutes.

I have no objection if the Senator wishes to take a few minutes extra, but I did want both Senators to understand that we are on the energy and water appropriations bill, and morning business is done under the consideration of that legislation. So I have no objection.

Mr. President, the 1 o'clock time has passed for the filing of amendments as a result of the cloture motion being filed last evening. I believe we now have about 90 amendments filed to this bill. Not all of them will be offered, certainly, but 90 amendments represent the determination of people who wish to alter this bill, who wish, presumably, to come and offer amendments, have a debate on amendments, and perhaps have a vote on their amendments. Yet no one arrives.

I indicated earlier that Senator Bennett and I have talked about a third reading on this legislation to move it through the Senate. The fact is, the majority leader will not have the patience to allow us to sit here with nothing to do and people saying they want to offer amendments but not being willing to show up to offer amendments. We have been here since Monday afternoon, and very little has been done.

I again say to the staff that may be watching or Senators who are watching, I think we ought to conclude this bill. If people are not interested in offering amendments--filing amendments is not offering them. If they do not have the interest in coming to the floor of the Senate to offer them, I am going to push very hard with the majority leader to go to third reading and finish this legislation this afternoon.

Mr. President, I am prepared to accept the amendment. My colleague, Senator Bennett, is as well. The amendment has been cleared. We have reviewed it. We think it has merit, and we have approved it on both sides. I suggest we ask for consideration and have a vote on the amendment at this point.

I thank the Senator from Vermont. I know he cares passionately about this issue. The description he has given demonstrates the merit of this proposal. Frankly, I am happy to be supportive.

Might I ask the Senator to yield for a question?

Senator Coburn and I and Senator Bennett talked about the order of his amendments. I believe he has three amendments. We intend to accept one. I had indicated to him on the contracting amendment he intends to offer, I will offer an amendment as well, and we will have side-by-side votes. I wonder if I might offer my amendment to have it pending. The Senator would then offer his amendment and discuss it and I would offer my amendment on behalf of myself and Senator Bennett. If that is acceptable to the Senator from Oklahoma, I believe my amendment is filed. I ask unanimous consent that that amendment be called up. It is amendment No. 1895. I ask that on behalf of myself and Senator Bennett.

I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I will respond, of course, to the comments of the Senator from Oklahoma. If he would wish, it might be sensible for him to proceed to offer his other amendments, calling them up, setting aside this amendment, and we will have them all in front of us. Then we can discuss them and develop an order by which we might vote.

Amendment No. 1878 as Modified to Amendment No. 1813

Mr. President, Senator Bennett and I have reviewed this amendment and think it has merit and support it and hope we could vote on this by voice vote and that we might do so immediately. So, Mr. President, if the Senator from Oklahoma is ready, I will suggest that we dispose of this amendment by consent.

It has been cleared by both the Republican side and Democratic side.

Mr. President, as always, the Senator from Oklahoma is thoughtful and courteous, and we appreciate--Senator Bennett and I appreciate--him coming to the floor and offering his amendments.

Let me say to the Senator from Oklahoma, we cut the administration budget in the Department of Energy by $8 million as we brought it to the floor. But even more important than that, we have cut $643 million from the Department of Energy from the President's budget. So as CBO recalculates the President's request to the Congress, we have cut $643 million. And we have cut $8 million in the administration budget in the Department of Energy.

So I sympathize with his notion. I certainly strongly support what he is suggesting to the Department of Energy they should do. I just say to him, we have already made those cuts and far, far more in terms of what the President wanted for the Department of Energy. We are $643 million below the President's request and $8 million below in the administration accounts in the Department of Energy.

Mr. President, I will be happy to yield to the Senator.

That is correct.

Mr. President, again, I agree that what we ought to be doing is encouraging the Department of Energy--all Departments--to be engaged in energy savings and efficiencies and so on. I will be glad to visit the Senator about cuts. But, as I said, we already made substantial cuts. I think the Senator from Oklahoma knows that the President's request, in the context of the broad range of budget requests for a broad group of Federal agencies, was what he felt he wanted and needed in order to have some sort of transformational energy future.

We are working on a wide range of new and innovative energy approaches: decarbonizing coal, additional production in wind and solar and biomass, additional production offshore in the gulf. We are working on a lot of issues, and some of that requires substantial research and development. So the President had a pretty good appetite for what he felt was needed. We cut that by $643 million.

The reason I am emphasizing that to the Senator is Senator Bennett and I did not just saddle up and say: Well, whatever you want, here it is. We cut it, and we cut it because we felt those cuts were deserved.

I certainly appreciate the Senator from Oklahoma coming to the floor wanting additional cuts. But $643 million is a pretty substantial walk away from what the President had originally requested for that agency.

My hope is that we can include--we will include--certainly I will be the chairman of the conference--we will include very strong and assertive language of the type the Senator is requiring of the Department of Energy. I would insist, as well, that the Department of Energy--all agencies--demonstrate efficiencies and conservation and the kinds of things that can and should be done to address the overusage of energy.

Mr. President, let me just make a comment.

I know the Senator feels strongly about contract reform, and on the two amendments in front of us, the Senator from Oklahoma talked a lot about earmarks. But, of course, he is well aware that his amendment deals with far more than just earmarks. The issue of formula awards to State and local governments which are carried in this legislation, the issue of competitive grants, the contract competition model that the Senator seems to suggest the Senator believes is appropriate for the competition and research and development, many of which are very exotic and interesting and cutting-edge, world-class research projects in the Department of Energy--I do not know that--I guess the people who do know suggest that the contract competition model for some of those kinds of things does not work very well because you are looking at things that go well beyond just who is going to bid the lowest on the kind of research and very high-tech, exotic research we are doing in a wide range of energy fields.

I generally have always supported contract competition. There is nobody who has been tougher on the Department of Defense, for example, on some of these contracts, particularly no-bid contracts to those who are contracting in Iraq. Next Monday will be my 20th hearing on issues like that. I strongly support competition in contracting.

I think this amendment that has been offered is not an amendment that very well fits this bill and addresses, in a very broad-stroke way, some things that should not be addressed that way. So that is the reason I have offered an alternative to it. My hope is that the Senate will agree with the alternative.

I might say, I believe this exact debate was held 2 weeks ago on the Homeland Security bill and has already been resolved by the Senate.

Mr. President, the Senator from Oklahoma is not going to win a debate we are not having.

I agree with most of what the Senator from Oklahoma said. I support contract--but the Senator from Oklahoma himself suggested maybe we should have a different model for the highly exotic research contracts. By the way, they are not just a few. You go to the labs and take a look at the contracts that are going on around the country in very exotic, high-tech research; cutting-edge, world-class research. If, in fact, there should be perhaps a different model for that, it is not in this amendment. That is my point.

I would be happy to sit down with the Senator from Oklahoma to bring an amendment to the floor that does address things in the right way, but to bring an amendment to the floor that has a very broad brush that covers everything when the Senator himself acknowledges that probably something other than that should be done with respect to these kinds of exotic research programs--he didn't respond to the issue of State formula grants and so on--but again, we are not having a debate about the merits of what you aspire to achieve.

I want us to have contracting rules that give the American people the best value for their dollar, that advance this country in the most significant, capable way. We want the same things. But my point is, when one offers an amendment such as this that says, All right, do it all this way, and even--I would say to the Senator from Oklahoma, even the Senator acknowledges there are areas that perhaps shouldn't be handled that way. So let's do it in a way that resolves it in the right way.

I know he is frustrated that we likely won't pass this amendment, but if he is going to bring it up time and time again, the next time or the time after, let's do it in a way that gets closer to that which we believe will address all of these issues the right way for the American taxpayer, and I will be on his side.

Mr. President, without prolonging this debate, let me say to the Senator from Oklahoma there are other ways to get things done as well. I mean, look, some of the most significant contracts that have gone out of this town recently in the last 10 years or so--the LOGCAP contract which provides services by contractors in Iraq--sole-source contract, billions and billions and billions of dollars--most of it went to Halliburton and KBR, by the way; not all of it but the fact is massive amounts of money.

I have held 20 hearings as of Monday on these issues. You know what. Finally, they are bidding all of those contracts. Finally, they are bidding them. When you hold up some of the abuses, you can actually require change, in my judgment. Yesterday the inspector general said those who were providing electrical services to the military bases in Iraq were responsible for the electrocution of soldiers because they were hiring third-country nationals who didn't know how to ground electrical wires, didn't know how to speak English. You know what. Those contracts are now going in other directions. There was a contract to provide water to military bases and the nonpotable water was more contaminated than raw water from the Euphrates River, paid for by our taxpayers to contractors who didn't have the foggiest idea what they were doing and got billions of dollars of contracts they didn't have to bid on.

The fact is this sort of thing is despicable and needs to change. I take no backseat to any Member of the Senate about trying to change these things. I have held 20 hearings on these contract issues in recent years. The Senator from Oklahoma comes and raises important questions, always. I understand that. My point to him was simple: This amendment, in my judgment, doesn't respond to all of the issues the Senator needs to respond to if the Senator is going to do an amendment that does reform contracting. I am very interested in working with him. He is on the right subject, in my judgment, just the wrong amendment.

I wanted to say, there are a lot of ways to change things. Yes, with an amendment here on the floor of the Senate; in committees; and I am sure the Senator from Oklahoma does that as well; pressing Federal agencies. You can get change by putting all of the spotlights on the same spot in a Federal agency to say, How do you justify this? We demand you change.

So there is a lot of good work that goes on by people who care about forcing change, and many of us have done it.

I wanted to say there are a lot of ways to do this and I encourage the Senator from Oklahoma to continue. I want to be a part of constructive change on contracting. I have been in the past and will be in the future.

Mr. President, let me ask if the Senator would agree, if he would withhold--I believe the Senator from Missouri wishes to make a very brief statement and she may be offering an amendment--I don't know that she is going to require a vote on it--and then we could line up--I believe we will have three recorded votes.

If we could turn to the Senator from Missouri at this point and then we could line up three successive votes on the Coburn amendments, two by Senator Coburn and one by myself and Senator Bennett.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

The Senator is not describing my position. I did not suggest carving out earmarks. The Senator has not heard that this afternoon.

You didn't hear that during the debate.

Will the Senator yield again?

The discussion wasn't just about earmarks. Perhaps it included them, but if the Senator is describing an amendment that only requires competition, or competitive bidding on earmarks, that is not the amendment.

Mr. President, the Senator from Missouri is an active, avid, and aggressive fighter for the interests of her State. I understand and recognize that. I would not expect anything else. But I will tell you a story about water and about the Missouri River. The Missouri River was a big old wild tangled river for a long time. It used to flood; it flooded a lot. In the spring, when the floods came from the river, it would devastate parts of my State, and South Dakota, and other States down South, and it would ruin the parks and flood them in St. Louis, MO, and so on. So some people came to North Dakota from the Federal Government and said: We would like to harness that Missouri River. They cannot play softball in the parks in St. Louis because of the flooding, and we would like to get the benefits of flood control. Our deal is this: If you will allow us, in the middle of North Dakota, to put in a flood that will come and stay forever--a big old flood, half a million acres of permanent flood, if you allow us to do that, we will allow you to have some benefits. We understand we are asking to flood your State in order to protect the downstream States. But if you allow us to do that, and if Montana and South Dakota will allow us to do that, we can put in these big old floods in the upstream States; and we understand there is a cost to you to have this flood, so we will let you move water around to benefit your State, and it will be good and you will appreciate it. The folks in my State, believing this was on the level, signed contracts and said that would be OK. They moved the Indians off the bottomland from reservations of the three affiliated tribes, and built the big old dam, and President Dwight Eisenhower came out to dedicate the dam. They backed up the water, and we have the half million acre flood. The Elbow Woods Indian Hospital is now under water, and has been for 50 years. So we have the flood that comes and stays.

The problem with the way the river is managed, after they built six mainstream dams, in order to harness the Missouri River, the way they manage it today is the way they planned to do it 60 years ago. They said we have a vision. We will be able to navigate the river down South with barges, and we will haul material on barges. What a great thing. Think of the value of having barge navigation on the downstream reaches of the Missouri River. Do you know what. There are days when--and I can get you reports--there is only one miserable boat floating in the downstream reaches of the Missouri. Yet we are furiously releasing water from the upstream dams to support one little old barge. By the way, that barge is hauling mostly sand and gravel, which is something of relatively low value. So we have this big fight about how the river should be managed.

In the old days, they predicted a lot of commercial value of barge traffic. But, in fact, that is not the case. The upstream value of recreation, tourism, and fishing is now almost 10 times the value of the downstream value of barge traffic. Yet the river is still managed for the minnow and not the whale, which is typical of the Corps of Engineers: Never change. Resist change. Never change, no matter what.

So they did an evaluation of the river, and all of the States, except Missouri--which was an outlier, and they wouldn't agree to anything-- they did an evaluation, and finally a study was developed. That study had a lot more to do with the Endangered Species Act and managing those issues than for determining whether we are making the best use of the river system in our current management scheme.

The answer is that the current management scheme makes no sense at all. We are releasing the water in the middle of a drought, which we did, by the way. It is a river system that has a capacity of around a 55 million to 58 million acre-feet of water. It was down to, I think, 35 million acre-feet of water, and we were releasing water to float one boat. That is unbelievable to me.

Last year, I included funding for a study that will study the management of this river, what is appropriate and should be done, with some semblance of common sense here. I know people objected to doing that because the answer may well be an answer that moves away from what I have called a ``one State hog rule,'' meaning give us all you have when we need it, and keep it all when we don't want it. It is an interesting way to manage the river, but that is the way some States on the Missouri have suggested it be managed.

It is not fair to us. We are waiting, 60 years later, for all of the benefits promised us if we would allow a permanent flood to stay forever in the middle of our State. Our ancestors did that. They said we will sign up for that, but we got all of the costs and have not yet received the benefits.

With respect to the management of the Missouri River system, it is long past time that the river be managed with the recognition of its current use. When we are still releasing water for one little barge, on 1 day, on the lower reaches of the Missouri, somebody ought to have their head examined. We cannot examine their head, but we can examine the master manual. That is what we are going to do with this study.

I have so much more to say, but let me resist and defer.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 5:15 p.m.

today, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the following amendments in the following order, with no amendments in order to any of the amendments covered in this agreement, with the time until then equally divided and controlled in the usual form; that after the first vote, the succeeding votes in the sequence be limited to 10 minutes each: Coburn amendment No. 1879, Dorgan amendment No. 1895--that is Dorgan-Bennett--and Coburn amendment No. 1884. Those three amendments are again No. 1879, No. 1895, and No. 1884.

Mr. President, Senator Bennett and I have discussed--and I have also visited with the majority leader within the last hour--my hope that we will be able to go to third reading, with the consent of Senator Bennett and the majority leader, following these votes and following a period in which we would gather together whatever remains. There are a few amendments that remain that we can clear. We have waited all day, and we waited all day yesterday. Senators have had plenty of opportunity, plenty of time, and their staffs have had plenty of notice, to come and offer amendments.

For the next hour, we will be here. We will have the vote at 5:15 p.m., and following that vote, it is my intention that we finish this bill very shortly following that vote by going to third reading. We don't want to preclude opportunities for people to offer amendments, but no one can hardly come to the Senate floor with a straight face and suggest they have been precluded from anything, given the fact that Senator Bennett and I have been sitting here patiently for well over the past 2 days.

Again, with the cooperation of our colleagues and with the hard work of our staff and our colleagues, I think we can finish this bill this evening.

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, I ask that the time during which we are in the quorum call be equally divided between both sides.

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

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

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, my understanding is, under the unanimous

consent agreement, the next vote is on amendment No. 1895.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, under the previous unanimous consent agreement, amendment No. 1884 is next to be voted on.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

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, if I might have the attention of the Senate, I wish to make a unanimous consent request.

I ask unanimous consent that we proceed with one part of my unanimous consent request and that is Senator Hutchison's amendment she wishes to offer, which I believe will now be a voice vote. So I ask unanimous consent that she now be recognized to offer her amendment, No. 1864, as modified.

Mr. President, I support the amendment. I would defer to Senator Bennett, but I believe it is agreed to by myself and Senator Bennett.

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, I think we are very close to final passage. We need to clear that, but Senator Bennett and I wish to proceed to the amendments that have been cleared on both sides as part of the managers' package. They have been considered by both sides and agreed to.

I ask unanimous consent to bring up, en bloc, the following amendments: 1859, as modified, and I send the modifications to the desk; 1867, as modified, and I send those modifications to the desk; 1842; 1888, as modified, and I send the modifications to the desk; 1891; and 1892.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading of the amendments that I sent to the desk.

Mr. President, to clarify, I said 1892 as the last amendment.

Again, those amendments have been cleared on both sides, and I believe there is no further debate. I would yield to my colleague, Senator Bennett, for his comments, and I would hope then for immediate consideration of the amendments.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for the immediate consideration of the amendments I sent to the desk, en bloc.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that they be agreed to, en bloc.

Mr. President, I believe we are again within minutes of being able to get to final passage. I make a point of order a quorum is not present.

I withhold my request.

Mr. President, I wanted in these moments to say a special thank you to Senator Bennett and the staff on the minority side and majority side who put this bill together and worked with us. This is a bill that funds the energy programs and water in this country. It is a bill that is very important. It has taken us a while on the floor to get it done.

I believe we have two amendments also remaining that we are trying to clear. We hope to clear those by voice vote momentarily. Then we will go to final passage. Hopefully we will get clearance to do that so we could be done in 10 or 15 minutes. It has been a long saga on the floor of the Senate here on this bill for the last several days, but I think the work is valuable and important and useful for the country. It is a good investment in our future.

As I said when we started this process, Senator Bennett is a great Senator to work with, a great Senator to partner with on some very important issues. He and his staff have done a great job, as has the staff on the majority side, putting this bill together. I am going to include all their names in the Record. I included most of their names at the start of this discussion a couple of days ago, but I want recognition paid to the people who spent time to put this bill together.

I want to alert colleagues I hope within a matter of 5 or 10 minutes to be able to do the two amendments remaining by voice and then go to final passage.

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

Mr. President, I think the Senator from Florida is going to seek recognition in a moment. I wish to mention for the Record the names of those staff who have contributed to the construction of this appropriations bill on the Energy and Water Subcommittee: Doug Clapp, Scott O'Malia, Roger Cockrell, Barry Gaffney, Franz Wuerfmannsdobler, Molly Barackman, Ben Hammond, Tyler Owens.

We have had a lot of staff people who have put in a great deal of time. I wished to mention them by name as my colleague has done as well. We are very grateful for the amount of time people put in to make these things happen. This bill was a very important bill. I think it was constructed very well.

We had a markup in the subcommittee, the full committee, and now good discussion on the floor of the Senate. We are very close to final passage. We are waiting because a couple Senators are asking for commitments on amendments on a bill that does not relate to this before they will agree to final passage. I think we are very close to having their appetite for that satisfied and we can go to final passage.

I believe the Senator from Florida is going to talk about two amendments that have been cleared on both sides that could then be cleared.

Both the minority and majority have cleared both these amendments. I would ask for a voice vote on the amendments.

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, I ask unanimous consent that no further amendments be in order; that the substitute amendment, as amended, be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table; that the bill, as amended, be read a third time and the Senate then proceed to vote on passage of the bill; that upon passage, the Senate insist on its amendment, request a conference with the House on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses, and that the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the Senate; provided further that if a budget point of order is raised against the substitute amendment and the point of order is not waived, then it be in order for another substitute amendment to be offered, minus the offending provisions but including any amendments which had been agreed to previously, and that then no further amendments be in order; that the new substitute amendment, as amended, be agreed to with the remaining provisions beyond the adoption of the substitute amendment remaining in effect; further, that the subcommittee plus Senator Inouye be appointed as conferees.

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