Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 226, S. 363.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Wicker amendment at the desk be agreed to; the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements related to the bill be printed in the Record.

I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from the further consideration of H.R. 398, and the Senate proceed to its consideration.

I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and the Senate now proceed to a vote on the passage of the bill.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, with no

intervening action or debate, and any statements related to the bill be placed in the Record at the appropriate place as if read.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 320 submitted earlier today.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 321, which was submitted earlier today.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 2 p.m., Monday, November 14, 2011; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; that following any leader remarks, the Senate be in a period of morning business until 3 p.m., with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each, with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, and that at 3 p.m. the Senate proceed to the consideration of H.R. 2354, the Energy and Water appropriations bill, for debate only.

There will be no rollcall votes on Monday. Senators should expect two votes at noon on Tuesday. Those votes will be the confirmation of the Gleason and Rogers nominations.

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent it adjourn under the previous order.

I thank the chairman of the Commerce Committee for his leadership on this important issue. I am glad to be on the Senate floor to set the record straight because we are here to talk about Internet freedom and about making sure the Internet does not have undue costs and expenses for consumers.

If you liked TARP and you liked the bailout of the big banks, well, guess what. Then you should vote for this resolution because this resolution is about whether you are going to let the communications companies that want to make the Internet more expensive by various technologies have their way.

If you believe the FCC should establish some rules to protect the freedom of the Internet, then you should oppose the Hutchison resolution. I prefer legislation that I have introduced, and some of my colleagues support, called the Freedom of the Internet Act, that goes further than what the Federal Communications Commission has done to implement true net neutrality. I would prefer that, and maybe in the future my colleagues will be working on such legislation.

But as it is today, the Federal Communications Commission has taken a half step, if you will, by proposing some rules that will set in place some protections for consumers to make sure they are protected on important aspects of keeping Internet costs down. The problem with the FCC rules is they only apply in some cases to fixed broadband and not to mobile broadband.

So if you think about it this way, the Internet is moving to a mobile broadband platform; that is, our hand-held devices, whether they are a BlackBerry or phone or what have you. So many more Americans are accessing the Internet that way. So the FCC has come up with rules on transparency and no blocking; that is, to make sure no content is blocked or slowed down for any undue cost or reason, and a nondiscrimination rule.

Unfortunately, those two last points, no blocking and unreasonable discrimination, do not apply to the mobile side. So we have work to do to make sure the youth of America who are consuming so much content online through their mobile devices are not going to be artificially charged more or slowed down in their access all because the telecommunications industry wants to have its way with the Internet.

My colleagues have been out here talking about innovation. I can tell you, the Internet has had a ton of innovation and a ton of content creation, all because there has been an even playing field and net neutrality. The fact now is that the telecommunications companies are debating an important issue, and the lines get blurred between telecommunications and the Internet, and it is clear we do not have all of the rules in place to make sure consumer interests are protected.

But today we have one thing: the FCC rules that are trying to slow down telecommunication companies from artificially either blocking or making content on the Internet more expensive. Again, when we go to the mobile phone model and we are being charged for time and data transfer, the fact that the data transfer and time take longer means we are going to have more expensive phone bills. That is why I said it was TARP- like, because the ``cha-ching'' we are going to hear from the phone companies on the money they are going to make from this is unbelievable.

So thank God the FCC took a half step and said: Whoa. Slow down. We are not going to let you do that. That is why people like Vint Cerf and Tim Berners-Lee, the architects and inventors pushing the Internet, have said what a bad idea it is to not make sure that net neutrality is the law of the land.

I notice my colleague who just spoke said, well, there have not been any problems. There have not been any issues. I read the online publications. Larry Lessig, someone I trust, was recounting in one of his interviews exactly what happened. Comcast went in and basically blocked large data files of peer-to-peer transfer, what is called bit torrent traffic.

First, Comcast said: No, no. We do not do that. We did not block that. We do not do it. But when it was basically found out that they did, they said: Oh, no, we did not block it. We just slowed it down. They sent little messages, as Mr. Lessig says in his article, to the Internet traffic to confuse the recipient and basically disrupt their traffic. OK? So that is what is happening.

These providers think if they can control the pipe, now they can also control the flow. It is also, as Mr. Lessig said later in this article, as if the entire electricity grid, our refrigerators and our toasters and our dryers, all of a sudden would start charging different rates on different things because the electricity company would decide it had the ability to charge different rates. Would we put up with that? No, we would not put up with that.

So why would we put up with allowing telcos to run at will on the Internet charging consumers anything they want based on the fact that they think they have the control of the switch?

I am so proud the chairman, Senator Rockefeller, has led this fight for the freedom of the Internet to drive down costs, to keep innovation, and to protect net neutrality. The FCC rules do not go far enough. We cannot continue to have this half step and not clearly, on the mobile side, give consumers the protection they need.

But for today, if you want to vote with Internet consumers and Internet users on driving down the costs of the Internet, then vote against this resolution and keep the minimal FCC rules in place until we can get stronger legislation passed. Make no mistake about it, the other side is talking about, well, they do not want to regulate the Internet. That is true. They do not want to regulate telcos that want to take advantage of the fact that they own the pipe and can charge a lot more.

I am glad the FCC at least took this measure. We should make sure it stands until we can even get stronger Internet freedom protection.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, as we consider the nomination of Heather Higginbottom to be Deputy Director of OMB, I would like to bring to the attention of my colleagues my concern for how OMB and the Coast Guard have been conducting business.

The Arctic is opening at an alarming rate, which creates new requirements for the U.S. Coast Guard and the Navy. Multiple Presidential directives call for Arctic presence to meet national security and homeland security needs; to facilitate safe, secure, and reliable navigation; to protect maritime commerce, and to protect the environment as resource development increases.

Polar icebreakers are critical to meet our national needs in the Arctic. According to a recent independent study, the Coast Guard and the Navy need six heavy-duty icebreakers and four medium icebreakers. This is not a political document; it is a study of the national security and commercial viability of the United States. It is not a surprise to this Senator that any third party, any independent judgment maker, or anyone paying attention as the Chinese, and the Russians, oil companies, even pirates actively stake claims in the Arctic, that the United States needs to be prepared to engage to protect its interests there.

In the Coast Guard Reauthorization Act of 2010, we required the Coast

Guard to complete a comparative business case analysis to determine how we can revitalize icebreaking fleet while maximizing taxpayer dollars. This study was due on October 15, and today I have come to the floor because the law is being ignored. The Coast Guard and OMB have failed to deliver this report that I remind you was required by law to be delivered to Congress days ago.

Even more distressing to me is that the Coast Guard is moving forward with decommissioning one of only two of our Nation's heavy duty icebreakers. We think this is unwise, and it is exactly why the Congress required a study of such an action. Surely the administration isn't simply choosing to flout the law by moving forward before this cost-benefit analysis has been completed or reviewed by Congress.

So I know Heather Higginbottom is probably keenly interested in the debate going on here today, and I hope that if she is listening and if she is confirmed as the Deputy Director of OMB, she will take this leadership opportunity to transform the way OMB does its business. It is time for OMB to stop holding up congressionally directed reports. I know there are a lot of smart people over at OMB, and they may not always like the people and their representatives questioning their judgment. However, even OMB must follow the law, and in this case they must deliver the business case analysis to Congress immediately. Some of the folks over at OMB may not agree with the Congress that polar icebreaker assets should be a priority. And while everyone is entitled to their opinion, even if it illustrates a complete lack of understanding of our national security needs, in our system of government Congress makes the laws, and at least this Senator expects them to be followed.

Madam President, in that en bloc group of amendments was an important amendment, amendment No. 893, as modified, that was sponsored by my colleagues from the Northwest--obviously myself, Senator Murray, Senator Wyden, Senator Merkley, Senator Boxer, and Senator Feinstein. We thought it was very important that this amendment pass tonight because scientists are calling it a disease emergency; that is, that the Pacific Northwest wild salmon might be threatened by a virus that has already decimated fish farm salmon from around the world.

So we want to see, first of all, important scientific questions answered about the impacts of this virus, and the threat they pose to Pacific Northwest salmon. Second, we want to make sure there is an aggressive management plan and an effective rapid response plan to deal with the threat of this virus. And, third, we want to make sure we are protecting the wild salmon and the important economy that goes with it.

I know many people know the Northwest is known for a healthy salmon population, but this salmon population is also an economy for us. It is tens of thousands of jobs and hundreds of millions of dollars as it relates to our economy. So being able to detect this virus and make sure we are assessing the potential threat to the wild salmon population is something we want to see happen immediately.

This makes sure the task force, which is a joint task force already in place between NOAA and the USDA, works effectively in a very short time period to make sure we are getting this accurate assessment.

As I mentioned, this virus in the farm fish population around the world--in Chile and other places--has decimated salmon. We cannot risk having this impact the Pacific Northwest wild salmon. So we need answers quickly from the scientific community. We need an action plan immediately. And we need to make sure we are formulating a rapid response as to what to do if we do detect this virus is spreading, with the potential impact we have seen in other areas.

I thank my colleagues for making sure this amendment was adopted tonight. I know Senator Murkowski had planned earlier to talk about this. I want to thank Senator Hutchison from Texas for helping us move this along in the process.

I hope now, as we move this legislation, we will also get the cooperation from NOAA and Secretary Lubchenco and others, and those at NMFS, to make sure we are responding very rapidly to this very serious, what people have called the scientific need to get these questions answered as soon as possible.

I thank the Presiding Officer and yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, due to the funeral of former Washington State Governor Rossellini, I was unable to attend yesterday's session to vote on the nomination of Cathy Bissoon to be a U.S. district judge for the Western District of Pennsylvania. Had I not been in Washington State, I would have supported the nomination.

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

I ask consent to speak as if in morning business.

Mr. President, I know my colleagues here want to join in on the debate that just transpired, but I wanted to take a minute to talk about Senate bill 1542, which passed last night. I know, just as people are frustrated here with everything that is going on, I think it is important to stop for a second, when something does pass and it is good policy, that we talk about it, and that is the Child and Family Services Improvement and Innovation Act.

Congress took a pretty big step last night by improving the lives of children by the passage of this legislation. It is about keeping families together. It is about rewarding government efficiency and driving down costs, and it is about giving flexibility to invest in programs that are proven to work for kids and families.

This bill is about America's children. It is about making sure that America's foster care program works for children so they can keep their families together. Too often, our Federal policies have punished States which have innovative programs, giving States money based on how many kids were still in foster care instead of rewarding success and innovation that helped transition children out of the foster care system and back with their families.

Let me tell you what has happened in Washington State. We have been implementing innovative programs to improve foster care for many years now. When Washington State noticed a disproportionate number of Native- American children being placed in foster care, our advocates took action and implemented the Washington Indian Child Welfare Act in developing strategies for strengthening tribal relationships and promoting the best interests of Native-American children.

When Washington State noticed in general how long children were staying in foster care, advocates took action, this time implementing policies to help reduce the length of stay for children in out-of-home care. As a result, the median length of stay for children in out-of- home care declined almost 100 days between 2009 and 2011. In addition, Washington State reduced its foster care caseloads by 13.8 percent during a similar time period.

Unfortunately, instead of being rewarded for these actions, we were penalized, and that is what this legislation has helped to correct. In fact, we lost $2.7 million during that time period. So this legislation, instead of punishing Washington State for keeping kids out of foster care, helps us ensure the kind of innovation that will help us to make sure the best programs are implemented. This allows Washington to increase its capacity to keep doing the things that keep children who have been in the foster care system from being in the foster care system the entirety of their childhood. This instead drives them, hopefully, successfully back with their families.

Our State can invest in evidence-based programs that have proven to work, and just as this legislation will help us to do, it will make sure that children don't bounce from foster home to foster home on a continuing basis. We will help to keep kids out of the care system and, when possible, place them back safely with families.

Washington State Representative Ruth Kagi, who has been a tireless advocate for this system, said it best:

Title IV-E waivers can help the State move from purchasing

specific services to purchasing specific outcomes.

I thank Chairman Baucus and Ranking Member Hatch for their timely and innovative work on this legislation. I wish my colleagues could have been at the hearing that was held earlier this year when Senator Baucus asked young adults, who had been part of the foster system for their entire lives, how to change the system.

I thank the chairman for taking into consideration the specific improvements and innovations that Washington State has advocated. And I thank my colleague, Representative Jim McDermott, and the Washington State legislators who worked on this, including Partners for Our Children, the Children's Home Society of Washington, and the various social workers and advocates who, in our State, continue to try to innovate when it comes to foster care in America.

This legislation is a major step forward to promote innovation on a Federal basis and to help keep families together. In doing so, we will have the benefit of also driving more efficiency and driving down the cost. But, more importantly, we are going to be working to strengthen America's children and families by trying effectively to keep them together.

I thank the President, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation aimed at breaking oil's monopoly over our Nation's transportation system. I would like to thank Senator Lugar for helping develop and agreeing to cosponsor this important bill.

The Open Fuels Standard Act of 2011 would introduce competition among fuels in the U.S. transportation market by ensuring that most new vehicles in the United States will be capable of running on a range of domestically produced alternative fuels.

By introducing competition among fuels, the Open Fuels Standard, OFS, Act aims to bring bout significant reductions in the high prices paid by U.S. consumers at the gas pump and in our Nation's dangerous overdependence on foreign oil. According to the Department of Energy, this lack of competition imposes a ``monopoly premium'' of more than $200 billion on the economy each year--a direct transfer of U.S. wealth to the treasuries of OPEC countries and other foreign oil producers. Keeping this money within U.S. borders would sharply cut the U.S. trade deficit, safeguard U.S. household income, and provide capital and market incentive for investment in new U.S. energy infrastructure.

The Open Fuels Standard Act requires that starting in 2015, 50 percent of new vehicles manufactured or sold in the United States be flex fuel capable--that is, able to run on non-petroleum fuels. These fuels would include domestically-produced ethanol or methanol or other alcohols in addition to--or instead of--petroleum-based fuels. In 2018, 80 percent of new vehicles would need to be flex-fuel capable. Adoption of an Open Fuels Standard would spur the development and use of alcohol fuels such as ethanol and methanol that can be made from a wide variety of domestic energy resources including agricultural waste, energy crops, natural gas, and even trash. By increasing the share of these abundant domestic fuels in the U.S. market, the Open Fuels Standard Act has the potential to eliminate major drag on the American economy, creating new jobs, strengthening our national security, and addressing challenging environmental concerns such as air quality and climate change.

Today's introduction of the Open Fuels Standard Act coincides with yesterday's launch of the United States Energy Security Council. The new Council's purpose is to focus on reducing U.S. energy vulnerability and enhancing national security by finding alternatives to foreign oil. This new group's members include former Secretary of State George Shultz, former Secretaries of Defense William Perry and Harold Brown, as well as three former national security advisers, a former C.I.A. director, two former senators, a Nobel laureate, a former Federal Reserve chairman, and several Fortune-50 chief executives.

The U.S. Energy Security Council is calling for Congress to enact a requirement such as the Open Fuels Standard to end oil's monopoly as the lynchpin of U.S. energy security, according to a New York Times op- ed on September 21 by council members former National Security Advisor Robert C. McFarlane and former Director of Central Intelligence R. James Woolsey.

The Open Fuels Standard Act will also complement and advance other key legislation that Congress has passed in recent years with the goals of transforming the U.S. energy system to make it more secure, more affordable, and more environmentally sustainable. For example, the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act included the Renewable Fuels Standard, requiring the production of 36 billion gallons of biofuels by 2022, and raising CAFE standards, corporate average fuel economy, for the first time in 20 years for SUVs and trucks. The Open Fuels Standard Act, in conjunction with policies such as these that we fought hard for in previous Congresses, will play a major role in achieving our long- term national energy goals.

Oil has had a monopoly over transportation fuel for too long and American drivers have had no choice but to pay volatile and elevated prices at the pump. I am encouraged by the broad bipartisan and stakeholder support for the Open Fuels Standard Act, and again would like to thank Senator Lugar, which I believe is a recognition that this approach will really help diversify our Nation's energy supply and spur investment and job creation.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation aimed at breaking oil's monopoly over our Nation's transportation system. I would like to thank Senator Lugar for helping develop and agreeing to cosponsor this important bill.

The Open Fuels Standard Act of 2011 would introduce competition among fuels in the U.S. transportation market by ensuring that most new vehicles in the United States will be capable of running on a range of domestically produced alternative fuels.

By introducing competition among fuels, the Open Fuels Standard, OFS, Act aims to bring bout significant reductions in the high prices paid by U.S. consumers at the gas pump and in our Nation's dangerous overdependence on foreign oil. According to the Department of Energy, this lack of competition imposes a ``monopoly premium'' of more than $200 billion on the economy each year--a direct transfer of U.S. wealth to the treasuries of OPEC countries and other foreign oil producers. Keeping this money within U.S. borders would sharply cut the U.S. trade deficit, safeguard U.S. household income, and provide capital and market incentive for investment in new U.S. energy infrastructure.

The Open Fuels Standard Act requires that starting in 2015, 50 percent of new vehicles manufactured or sold in the United States be flex fuel capable--that is, able to run on non-petroleum fuels. These fuels would include domestically-produced ethanol or methanol or other alcohols in addition to--or instead of--petroleum-based fuels. In 2018, 80 percent of new vehicles would need to be flex-fuel capable. Adoption of an Open Fuels Standard would spur the development and use of alcohol fuels such as ethanol and methanol that can be made from a wide variety of domestic energy resources including agricultural waste, energy crops, natural gas, and even trash. By increasing the share of these abundant domestic fuels in the U.S. market, the Open Fuels Standard Act has the potential to eliminate major drag on the American economy, creating new jobs, strengthening our national security, and addressing challenging environmental concerns such as air quality and climate change.

Today's introduction of the Open Fuels Standard Act coincides with yesterday's launch of the United States Energy Security Council. The new Council's purpose is to focus on reducing U.S. energy vulnerability and enhancing national security by finding alternatives to foreign oil. This new group's members include former Secretary of State George Shultz, former Secretaries of Defense William Perry and Harold Brown, as well as three former national security advisers, a former C.I.A. director, two former senators, a Nobel laureate, a former Federal Reserve chairman, and several Fortune-50 chief executives.

The U.S. Energy Security Council is calling for Congress to enact a requirement such as the Open Fuels Standard to end oil's monopoly as the lynchpin of U.S. energy security, according to a New York Times op- ed on September 21 by council members former National Security Advisor Robert C. McFarlane and former Director of Central Intelligence R. James Woolsey.

The Open Fuels Standard Act will also complement and advance other key legislation that Congress has passed in recent years with the goals of transforming the U.S. energy system to make it more secure, more affordable, and more environmentally sustainable. For example, the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act included the Renewable Fuels Standard, requiring the production of 36 billion gallons of biofuels by 2022, and raising CAFE standards, corporate average fuel economy, for the first time in 20 years for SUVs and trucks. The Open Fuels Standard Act, in conjunction with policies such as these that we fought hard for in previous Congresses, will play a major role in achieving our long- term national energy goals.

Oil has had a monopoly over transportation fuel for too long and American drivers have had no choice but to pay volatile and elevated prices at the pump. I am encouraged by the broad bipartisan and stakeholder support for the Open Fuels Standard Act, and again would like to thank Senator Lugar, which I believe is a recognition that this approach will really help diversify our Nation's energy supply and spur investment and job creation.