Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise to speak about the role nuclear energy can play in moving our country toward a more secure energy future. For some, news that a Udall is speaking favorably about nuclear power will come as a stark and perhaps unpleasant surprise. But I also believe public and expert opinion on the risks and benefits of nuclear power has changed.

The environmental and energy security challenges that we faced in the 1970s, when that decade closed in the shadow of Three Mile Island, have changed significantly. When my father Mo Udall campaigned for President in the New Hampshire primary in 1976--and the Presiding Officer remembers that era--and when he was asked about the controversial Seabrook nuclear facility, no one had climate change on their list of environmental concerns.

Today, more than 30 years on, we have a less parochial and more global view about the challenges of energy security, climate change, and the problems associated with carbon-based energy production.

Given the economic, national security, and environmental threats our current energy system creates, we need a comprehensive and cleaner national energy policy. In this regard, clearly, nuclear energy has emerged as an important player in our search for a stable and domestic energy source that has less greenhouse gas emissions.

A cleaner energy economy will spur innovation in and accelerate the shift to clean and domestic energy sources. It will create a new industrial sector, employing millions of Americans in the research, development, manufacturing, sale, installation and servicing of new energy technologies. And it will help reduce our dependence on foreign oil from unstable regions of the world.

Moreover, like it or not, we must address the climate challenge we face. My State of Colorado is already seeing the indirect impacts of carbon pollution in the form of a devastating bark beetle infestation that is killing our forests.

Looking beyond environmental concerns and as we face perhaps our greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression, we also need an ``all of the above'' solution to jump-start our economy. That means continuing our development of renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, and biomass, as well as traditional energy resources like coal and oil, and cleaner fuels like natural gas.

That also means we should continue to invest in energy efficiency and conservation technology. And that means that nuclear energy and new nuclear power plants must be a part of the mix.

As I said earlier, a growing number of skeptics and even opponents of nuclear power are taking a second look at this industry. I count myself among them, and these are some of the reasons why:

First, in the last few decades, the performance and safety record of nuclear plant operations in the United States has greatly improved. Safety is and always must be the No. 1 priority at nuclear facilities. There is always more we can do on safety, but the industry has built a good record and we should recognize that fact.

Then there are the environmental benefits to nuclear power. Unlike fossil fuel plants, nuclear plants do not emit appreciable amounts of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, mercury or particulate matter. That means they cause less acid rain, as well as fewer asthma complications and other health ailments.

Further, nuclear plants release minimal amounts of carbon pollution. In fact, nuclear power plants are one of the few low-carbon, large- scale sources of baseload power that we know how to build today.

Let me note that carbon-capture and storage technologies at coal and natural gas plants could also potentially provide low-carbon baseload power at large scales too. And it is very important that we build these first commercial CCS plants and do all we can to develop economically viable carbon-capture and sequestration technologies.

I have long been a supporter of renewable energy and energy efficiency, and I will continue to be. But the scale of the energy changes we must make dictates that we be open to the widest variety of energy options, particularly those with domestic potential and those with cleaner emissions. In other words, there is no silver bullet that will solve all of our energy challenges; we are going to need, in the parlance of the West, silver buckshot. Examining all the pros and cons, I have come to the view that nuclear energy is a part of that silver buckshot.

I know there are many who remain skeptical of nuclear power, including good friends of mine. Nuclear power is not trouble-free. No energy source is. I hope we can all agree, however, on our clean energy goals: more jobs, greater energy security, and a cleaner environment for our children.

Supporters and opponents of nuclear power share another concern in common. Neither knows for sure how much new nuclear plants are going to cost. We have a new licensing process that has never been tested. We have not ordered a new nuclear plant in three decades. Many nuclear technology components, for at least the first wave of nuclear plants, will likely be manufactured in other countries, and the future cost of construction materials is unknown. These uncertainties, along with others, led the National Academy of Sciences to estimate that electricity from new nuclear plants would likely cost in the range of 8 to 13 cents per kilowatt hour, which is a considerable span. Given the large potential of nuclear energy, however, we need to build new nuclear plants over the next decade.

This first wave of new plants will go a long way toward telling us whether new plants can be built on budget and on schedule in the United States. I hope the answers are yes and yes, and that the final cost of electricity is at the lower end of the uncertainty range. I say this because if nuclear energy is to survive as a viable option, it will need to compete against other low-carbon technologies in the long run.

Some may object to the building of new nuclear plants before we have a long-term solution to the question of what to do with nuclear waste. It is true we do not have a permanent solution right now. It is also true that the answers about the viability, both environmental and political, of Yucca Mountain as a permanent waste facility continue to elude us. I fully acknowledge that as a Member of the House of Representatives, I shared these concerns and voted accordingly. But uncertainty about a long-term and permanent solution to waste storage is not a reason to halt nuclear power. I am confident that we have the technical capabilities and knowledge to safely and responsibly store nuclear waste for the required time periods. This is not a technology problem. It is a challenge to find a fair and safe path forward, and I support the President's intention to appoint a blue ribbon commission to make such a recommendation.

In the meantime, dry cask storage provides a safe, proven option for at least 100 years. We have time to get this right, so let us not rush into anything out of a false sense of emergency.

Let me turn to another subject tied to nuclear power production, and that

is reprocessing. It has been suggested that we should build commercial scale facilities in the United States to reprocess our spent fuel as France and Japan do. I do not believe that makes sense. Why? First, the French system of reprocessing is not a comprehensive waste management strategy, and so far the benefits from that approach have been fairly marginal. In other words, they have not solved their waste challenge with reprocessing. Secondly, we do not need to recycle spent nuclear fuel to enable the expansion of nuclear power in the United States and elsewhere. Uranium supplies are sufficient to support a worldwide expansion of nuclear power during this next century. Third, the international proliferation risk associated with reprocessing is a concern. The process used in France creates separated plutonium which could be diverted for weapons production. I do not want to see separated plutonium in any country but especially in those that are unfriendly to us. And we are in a weaker position to try and dissuade those countries from reprocessing if we are doing it ourselves.

My conclusion is that a near-term decision to deploy reprocessing facilities would be unwise and unnecessary. I do support research into advanced proliferation-resistant technologies, though none of those will be ready for deployment anytime in the near future. In general, our goal should be to keep nuclear power as low-cost and proliferation- resistant as possible.

To that end, today I am introducing a bipartisan bill, the Nuclear Energy Research Initiative Improvement Act of 2009. This bill, which is cosponsored by Chairman Bingaman and Ranking Member Murkowski, authorizes the U.S. Department of Energy to conduct research into modular and small-scale reactors, enhanced proliferation controls, and cost-efficient manufacturing.

We are going to be debating clean energy later this Congress. I know several of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle would like to see a strong nuclear title. I hope we can come to a reasonable compromise that advances nuclear power and allows us to finally put a price on carbon pollution. That will give the energy sector the certainty it needs to begin planning and building our clean energy future and to begin creating clean energy jobs.

Nuclear plants to date provide jobs for thousands of Americans, and new plants would provide thousands more. New plants would also generate millions in tax revenues for State, local, and Federal governments struggling with large deficits from the economic downturn. Nuclear power's energy security and environmental benefits have earned this industry an important place at the table. It is my hope we can build some nuclear plants over the next decade to create jobs and build a cleaner, more secure tomorrow.

I invite all of my colleagues, from both sides of the aisle, to join Senator Bingaman, Senator Murkowski, and me in cosponsoring the Nuclear Energy Research Initiative Improvement Act of 2009.

One of my energy fellows, Matt Bowen, is leaving my office to join the Department of Energy. I thank Matt for his work in my office, including on the bill I am introducing today, and I wish him well at the Department of Energy. We have been well served as a country by Matt Bowen's patriotism and work ethic.

Mr. President, I rise to speak about the role nuclear energy can play in moving our country toward a more secure energy future. For some, news that a Udall is speaking favorably about nuclear power will come as a stark and perhaps unpleasant surprise. But I also believe public and expert opinion on the risks and benefits of nuclear power has changed.

The environmental and energy security challenges that we faced in the 1970s, when that decade closed in the shadow of Three Mile Island, have changed significantly. When my father Mo Udall campaigned for President in the New Hampshire primary in 1976--and the Presiding Officer remembers that era--and when he was asked about the controversial Seabrook nuclear facility, no one had climate change on their list of environmental concerns.

Today, more than 30 years on, we have a less parochial and more global view about the challenges of energy security, climate change, and the problems associated with carbon-based energy production.

Given the economic, national security, and environmental threats our current energy system creates, we need a comprehensive and cleaner national energy policy. In this regard, clearly, nuclear energy has emerged as an important player in our search for a stable and domestic energy source that has less greenhouse gas emissions.

A cleaner energy economy will spur innovation in and accelerate the shift to clean and domestic energy sources. It will create a new industrial sector, employing millions of Americans in the research, development, manufacturing, sale, installation and servicing of new energy technologies. And it will help reduce our dependence on foreign oil from unstable regions of the world.

Moreover, like it or not, we must address the climate challenge we face. My State of Colorado is already seeing the indirect impacts of carbon pollution in the form of a devastating bark beetle infestation that is killing our forests.

Looking beyond environmental concerns and as we face perhaps our greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression, we also need an ``all of the above'' solution to jump-start our economy. That means continuing our development of renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, and biomass, as well as traditional energy resources like coal and oil, and cleaner fuels like natural gas.

That also means we should continue to invest in energy efficiency and conservation technology. And that means that nuclear energy and new nuclear power plants must be a part of the mix.

As I said earlier, a growing number of skeptics and even opponents of nuclear power are taking a second look at this industry. I count myself among them, and these are some of the reasons why:

First, in the last few decades, the performance and safety record of nuclear plant operations in the United States has greatly improved. Safety is and always must be the No. 1 priority at nuclear facilities. There is always more we can do on safety, but the industry has built a good record and we should recognize that fact.

Then there are the environmental benefits to nuclear power. Unlike fossil fuel plants, nuclear plants do not emit appreciable amounts of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, mercury or particulate matter. That means they cause less acid rain, as well as fewer asthma complications and other health ailments.

Further, nuclear plants release minimal amounts of carbon pollution. In fact, nuclear power plants are one of the few low-carbon, large- scale sources of baseload power that we know how to build today.

Let me note that carbon-capture and storage technologies at coal and natural gas plants could also potentially provide low-carbon baseload power at large scales too. And it is very important that we build these first commercial CCS plants and do all we can to develop economically viable carbon-capture and sequestration technologies.

I have long been a supporter of renewable energy and energy efficiency, and I will continue to be. But the scale of the energy changes we must make dictates that we be open to the widest variety of energy options, particularly those with domestic potential and those with cleaner emissions. In other words, there is no silver bullet that will solve all of our energy challenges; we are going to need, in the parlance of the West, silver buckshot. Examining all the pros and cons, I have come to the view that nuclear energy is a part of that silver buckshot.

I know there are many who remain skeptical of nuclear power, including good friends of mine. Nuclear power is not trouble-free. No energy source is. I hope we can all agree, however, on our clean energy goals: more jobs, greater energy security, and a cleaner environment for our children.

Supporters and opponents of nuclear power share another concern in common. Neither knows for sure how much new nuclear plants are going to cost. We have a new licensing process that has never been tested. We have not ordered a new nuclear plant in three decades. Many nuclear technology components, for at least the first wave of nuclear plants, will likely be manufactured in other countries, and the future cost of construction materials is unknown. These uncertainties, along with others, led the National Academy of Sciences to estimate that electricity from new nuclear plants would likely cost in the range of 8 to 13 cents per kilowatt hour, which is a considerable span. Given the large potential of nuclear energy, however, we need to build new nuclear plants over the next decade.

This first wave of new plants will go a long way toward telling us whether new plants can be built on budget and on schedule in the United States. I hope the answers are yes and yes, and that the final cost of electricity is at the lower end of the uncertainty range. I say this because if nuclear energy is to survive as a viable option, it will need to compete against other low-carbon technologies in the long run.

Some may object to the building of new nuclear plants before we have a long-term solution to the question of what to do with nuclear waste. It is true we do not have a permanent solution right now. It is also true that the answers about the viability, both environmental and political, of Yucca Mountain as a permanent waste facility continue to elude us. I fully acknowledge that as a Member of the House of Representatives, I shared these concerns and voted accordingly. But uncertainty about a long-term and permanent solution to waste storage is not a reason to halt nuclear power. I am confident that we have the technical capabilities and knowledge to safely and responsibly store nuclear waste for the required time periods. This is not a technology problem. It is a challenge to find a fair and safe path forward, and I support the President's intention to appoint a blue ribbon commission to make such a recommendation.

In the meantime, dry cask storage provides a safe, proven option for at least 100 years. We have time to get this right, so let us not rush into anything out of a false sense of emergency.

Let me turn to another subject tied to nuclear power production, and that

is reprocessing. It has been suggested that we should build commercial scale facilities in the United States to reprocess our spent fuel as France and Japan do. I do not believe that makes sense. Why? First, the French system of reprocessing is not a comprehensive waste management strategy, and so far the benefits from that approach have been fairly marginal. In other words, they have not solved their waste challenge with reprocessing. Secondly, we do not need to recycle spent nuclear fuel to enable the expansion of nuclear power in the United States and elsewhere. Uranium supplies are sufficient to support a worldwide expansion of nuclear power during this next century. Third, the international proliferation risk associated with reprocessing is a concern. The process used in France creates separated plutonium which could be diverted for weapons production. I do not want to see separated plutonium in any country but especially in those that are unfriendly to us. And we are in a weaker position to try and dissuade those countries from reprocessing if we are doing it ourselves.

My conclusion is that a near-term decision to deploy reprocessing facilities would be unwise and unnecessary. I do support research into advanced proliferation-resistant technologies, though none of those will be ready for deployment anytime in the near future. In general, our goal should be to keep nuclear power as low-cost and proliferation- resistant as possible.

To that end, today I am introducing a bipartisan bill, the Nuclear Energy Research Initiative Improvement Act of 2009. This bill, which is cosponsored by Chairman Bingaman and Ranking Member Murkowski, authorizes the U.S. Department of Energy to conduct research into modular and small-scale reactors, enhanced proliferation controls, and cost-efficient manufacturing.

We are going to be debating clean energy later this Congress. I know several of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle would like to see a strong nuclear title. I hope we can come to a reasonable compromise that advances nuclear power and allows us to finally put a price on carbon pollution. That will give the energy sector the certainty it needs to begin planning and building our clean energy future and to begin creating clean energy jobs.

Nuclear plants to date provide jobs for thousands of Americans, and new plants would provide thousands more. New plants would also generate millions in tax revenues for State, local, and Federal governments struggling with large deficits from the economic downturn. Nuclear power's energy security and environmental benefits have earned this industry an important place at the table. It is my hope we can build some nuclear plants over the next decade to create jobs and build a cleaner, more secure tomorrow.

I invite all of my colleagues, from both sides of the aisle, to join Senator Bingaman, Senator Murkowski, and me in cosponsoring the Nuclear Energy Research Initiative Improvement Act of 2009.

One of my energy fellows, Matt Bowen, is leaving my office to join the Department of Energy. I thank Matt for his work in my office, including on the bill I am introducing today, and I wish him well at the Department of Energy. We have been well served as a country by Matt Bowen's patriotism and work ethic.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Alaska for convening the important discussion we have had here this morning. As you have heard and we have all heard over the last hour, my colleagues and I agree that the point of health care reform is to bring affordable, quality health care to all Americans. The bill

we will debate here on the floor in the coming weeks will include important insurance reforms to make that a reality.

I want to ask you though, Mr. President, and everybody watching, will we have succeeded in our mission if we merely put an insurance card in every American's pocket? Comprehensive health care reform needs to be about a lot more than that. We have heard about the difficult fiscal challenges that await us if we do nothing. Putting our economy on a sustainable path for the future means we have to address this unsustainable growth in health care spending that you so eloquently addressed earlier in your remarks.

One of the best ways we can do that is by preventing illness in the first place. The good news is that many communities and providers all over the country are doing just that. We can recognize their innovative successes and incentivize others to follow in this reform package. If we do that, we will have a big impact on patient health as well as on the Nation's bottom line.

I wish to talk about a program in Colorado that has been getting results. The Northwest Colorado Visiting Nurse Association, which has been working with the Department of Public Health, local physicians, and others, operates the Aging Well program. It focuses on prevention, and it connects rural Coloradans over age 50 with services and information to help them remain active, healthy, in their homes, and out of the hospital. Patients receive health screenings, exercise classes, and courses on managing conditions such as arthritis or chronic pain. Aging Well has been a great success. Listen to these numbers from a recent survey: 98 percent of participants reported improved fitness, 60 percent visited their doctor less often, and 18 percent reduced their medication needs. This saves dollars and improves lives.

Health insurance reform legislation includes funding to start similar programs aimed at keeping those just shy of their Medicare years--I have to confess, like me--active and healthy. The goal is to allow Americans to avoid spending their golden years worrying about illnesses that could have been prevented in the first place. To complement these programs, additional grants would give these organizations the tools to promote healthy living for all ages, reduce obesity, tobacco use, and mental illness.

Health reform would also require insurers to provide full coverage for preventive services at no cost to enrollees. That is music to the ears of any American who has skipped a recommended mammogram or an annual physical exam because the cost was too great.

Let me talk about children as well. There are grants in our health reform package for school-based health clinics so that children who lack easy access to a doctor can get preventive care right at school. These clinics have been shown to save $2 for every $1 they spend. This results in fewer emergency room visits and hospital visits, and we deliver health care before problems become more serious.

Let me turn back to adults in the workplace. Reform would bring wellness programs to the workplace by providing grants for employers. Companies that have implemented wellness programs have already seen big savings. PepsiCo is one such company. They offer onsite screenings, programs to help employees lose weight, exercise incentives, and other measures. As a result, they have saved nearly $120 per participating employee per month, which has resulted in a 2-year savings of over $22 million. Even better than the dollars involved here, participants demonstrated lower health risks and better health outcomes. This is one more way reform will pave the way and provide incentives for more companies to follow suit for their employees.

Reform is also a great deal for seniors. For the first time, Medicare will pay for annual wellness visits. Reform would create incentives for Medicare patients who alter their behavior in order to lower their blood pressure and better control their diabetes. Medicare will cover recommended preventive services now, which is at no additional cost to seniors. In sum, contrary to what we have heard from some on the other side, Medicare benefits will be improved by the reform that is being proposed.

Let me conclude by pointing out that this legislation makes the wise choice of building on our wellness efforts that are already working. We know preventive care enables doctors and other health care providers to detect diseases earlier, when treatment is the most effective, averting more serious and costly problems later on. But it also empowers each and every one of us to take charge of improving the quality of our lives, and when done correctly it is a crucial component of efficiently and responsibly addressing health care spending.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I rise today to discuss an issue of importance to all American consumers who rely on credit cards, especially during our economic downturn. More specifically, I would like to address two pieces of critically important legislation that would help consumers.

First, last week I introduced legislation to move up the effective date of credit card reforms outlined in the Credit CARD Act, which was signed into law by President Obama in May. The act gave credit card issuers nine months from the date of enactment to phase out their most egregious practices, including arbitrarily raising interest rates, raising interest rates on existing balances, and charging interest on debt paid on time--the latter a particularly underhanded tactic known as double-cycle billing.

Rather than phasing out these practices before the new requirements take effect, credit card issuers have increased them, squeezing as much as they can out of American consumers prior to the date the reforms are scheduled to go into effect. A Pew Charitable Trusts study to be released later this week will reveal that through the first 6 months of this year, the 12 largest credit card issuers raised interest rates an average of 20 percent, with many cardholders seeing rate increases in excess of 20 percent. This is happening despite the fact that these credit card companies, many of which received taxpayer bailout funds, are reaping the benefit--some might say government subsidy--of Federal interest rates at or near zero percent.

The bill I introduced last week, the Expedited CARD Reform for Consumers Act of 2009, will move the effective date of enactment for all reforms required under the Credit CARD Act to December 1, 2009. The majority of reforms are currently due to go into effect on February 22, 2010, with a few other reforms due to go into effect on August 22, 2010.

We all know how important short-term credit is to families and small businesses, especially during hard economic times. And we have all heard stories of people who have been victimized by the kind of unfair practices that the Credit CARD Act will end. But the truth is I have heard more stories from my constituents about these unfair and deceptive practices since the President signed the Credit CARD Act into law, than I did in the months leading up to the bill's passage. And that's saying something.

Through no fault of their own, many Coloradans have been victimized by their credit card issuer. For example, a constituent named Jean from Commerce City wrote to me:

Recently, CitiBank raised my [credit card] APR to 29.99

percent. I called and found out that they did not raise my

rate because I'm late, or have a bad FICO score, but because

they sent me a letter with the option to opt OUT of a higher

interest rate. I've had this card for over 15 years and never

been late. I don't understand how taxpayers gave banks

taxpayer money, banks report record profits, and banks still

feel they can [take unfair advantage of] the common Joe.

Basically our credit card companies took away our available

credit and then raised our credit card rates even though we

made payments on time. Please help the citizens of this

country instead of helping the few executives at these banks.

We really need your help, and in the long run this will help

our country.

Likewise, northern Colorado small business owner Ginny Teel, whose company 10 til 2 helps pair businesses with professionals looking for part-time work, recently took to the airwaves to tell a similar story. In a Denver television news story, Ginny reported how her credit card company is doubling her interest rate, from 11 percent to 22 percent, for no reason. Like many small businesses, Ginny relied on her credit card to get her business up and running. In the letter to inform her of the rate increase, Wells Fargo states: ``These changes are not a reflection of how you managed your account with us or your credit score.'' In other words, her credit card issuer is saying it is doubling her interest rate because it still can.

I have heard from hundreds of Coloradans with similar stories since the Credit CARD Act was passed.

For many American families and small businesses, credit cards are more than a convenience, they are a necessity. Short-term credit is sometimes the only way that families can pay for necessities or that small businesses can function. And a well-functioning credit card industry that treats its customers with fairness is absolutely essential to rebuilding our economy.

I first introduced legislation to end unfair and abusive credit card practices in 2005 as a Member of the House of Representatives, and I was honored to be a part of finally passing real reform earlier this year. But I am equally disappointed that credit card issuers would now bleed American consumers for as much as they can prior to the reforms taking effect.

My legislation is supported by consumer advocate organizations, including the member organizations of Americans for Fairness in Lending, as well as the National Small Business Association, whose members, like Ginny Teel, increasingly rely on credit cards for their small business needs.

During debate on the Credit CARD Act earlier this year, credit card companies told Congress they needed more time to implement the bill's reforms, and Congress accommodated them. Rather than phase out these practices, however, credit card companies have used this extra time to declare open season on their customers. If credit card companies can increase abuse on a moment's notice, then surely they can end consumer abuse in short order.

Credit card issuers have shown they cannot be trusted to act in the interest of the American consumer. It is time to force credit card companies to finally deal honestly with American taxpayers and comply with the reforms passed earlier this year.

I thank Senators Schumer, Harkin, Levin, Bingaman, Tester, and

Merkley for cosponsoring the Expedited CARD Reform for Consumers Act. In addition, along with Senate Banking Committee Chairman Dodd, today I cosponsored a bill that would immediately freeze interest rates on existing credit card balances. This is an important bill that will allow consumers to pay off their credit card debt at the interest rate they consented to when they took on that debt. It is a matter of fairness. I look forward to working with Chairman Dodd and colleagues from both parties to pass these important bills as quickly as possible.

Mr. President, just a month ago, I joined fellow Coloradans, my colleagues in the U.S. Congress, and others across the country to celebrate and acknowledge the many accomplishments and contributions of the Hispanic community in the United States and Colorado. I am particularly proud to highlight the long history of Hispanics in Colorado, as they established some of Colorado's oldest communities, irrigation systems, and earliest businesses. I am equally proud that this community continues to be a vibrant part of the fabric of our great State.

Throughout this month, my colleagues and I have been hard at work to move forward on many policy concerns that are vitally important to Colorado's Hispanic community. From the confirmation of America's first Latina Supreme Court Justice, Sonia Sotomayor, to progress on health insurance reform, and continued support for efforts to create and save jobs, I have been working with the best interests of Colorado in mind. Still, there is much to be accomplished.

We must come together to find opportunities to improve the quality of life of all Coloradans. In doing so, it is important to keep in mind that certain populations, such as Latinos, are disproportionately affected by many of the challenges we face as a State and country. At a national level, Latinos face an unemployment rate that is 3 percent higher than the national rate. In Colorado, Latinos face a poverty rate that is 12 percent higher than the State's overall poverty rate. Latinos also face other challenges--40 percent of Hispanics in Colorado are uninsured, approximately 24 percent higher than the State average, according to a Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment report. Though these issues are not a concern for Latinos in Colorado alone, they undoubtedly raise heightened concerns for the Hispanic community, given these statistics.

These are just a few reasons I have continued to support and develop policies that provide both quality jobs and help reduce the costs of hard-working Coloradans. Most notably, we have made significant progress toward reforming our health insurance system so that it better meets the health needs of all Americans. Making our health system more efficient, fiscally manageable, and accessible is vitally important to making health insurance more affordable for Hispanic and non-Hispanic families alike.

As a member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, I have also been working to develop new ways to help low-income and working families afford to make their homes more energy efficient. By improving access to energy-saving technology and making homes more energy efficient, families can reduce their energy costs, while helping to make our environment and communities better places to live. This is just one part of a new energy economy that can bring more jobs to our State.

We have had much to celebrate during this year's Hispanic Heritage Month, but we also have much to do, and I understand there are many more goals that we have yet to achieve. So while we have enjoyed the celebration of Hispanic heritage and the contributions Latinos make in our communities over the last month, I will continue my efforts to improve the quality of life for Coloradans of all backgrounds in every month of the year.

Madam President, it is great to be here with you this evening. I see Senator Durbin is still on the floor, and I know he may want to speak to the issue that was just raised. We are here discussing the public option. I hope Senator Durbin has a minute or two to talk about that.

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

Madam President, I yield the floor.

(Mr. UDALL of Colorado assumed the Chair.)

Mr. President, I rise tonight to announce that I am introducing legislation designed to help promote the cleanup of abandoned and inactive hard rock mines that are a menace to the environment and public health throughout the country, but especially to the West.

In previous sessions of Congress when I was a Member of the House of Representatives, I introduced similar bills. Following the introduction of those previous bills, revisions were made to incorporate a number of changes developed in consultation with a wide range of interested parties. These parties included representatives of the Western Governors' Association, the Environmental Protection Agency, the hardrock mining industry, and environmental groups.

The bill I am introducing today is also the product of further consultations. It represents years of effort to reach agreement on establishing a program to advance the cleanup of polluted water from abandoned mines.

For over one hundred years, miners and prospectors have searched for and developed valuable hardrock minerals, such as gold, silver, and copper. Hardrock mining has played a key role in the history of Colorado and many other States. The resulting mineral wealth has been an important aspect of our economy and the development of essential products that we all take for granted.

However, as all westerners know, this history has too often been marked by a series of ``boom'' times followed by ``busts,'' when mines were no longer profitable. When these busts came, too often the miners would abandon their work and move on, seeking riches over the next mountain. The resulting legacy of unsafe open mine shafts and acid mine drainages can be seen throughout the country and especially on the Western public lands where mineral development was encouraged to help settle our region.

The problems caused by abandoned and inactive mines are very real and very large. They include acidic water draining from old tunnels; heavy metals leaching into streams, killing fish and tainting water supplies; open vertical mine shafts; dangerous highwalls; large open pits; waste rock piles that are unsightly and dangerous; and hazardous dilapidated structures.

Unfortunately, many of our current environmental laws, designed to mitigate the impact from operating hard rock mines, are of limited effectiveness when they are applied to abandoned and inactive mines. As a result, many of these old mines go on polluting streams and rivers and potentially risking the health of people who live nearby or downstream.

Right now, there are two serious obstacles to progress. One is a serious lack of funds for cleaning up sites for which no private person or entity can be held liable. The other obstacle is legal.

While the Clean Water Act is one of the most effective and important of our environmental laws, as applied to abandoned hard rock mines, it can mean that someone undertaking to clean up an abandoned or inactive mine will be exposed to the same liability that would apply to a party responsible for creating the site's problems in the first place. As a result, would-be Good Samaritans understandably have been unwilling to volunteer their services to clean up abandoned and inactive mines.

The Governors of our Western States have recognized the need for action to address this serious problem. They have adopted bipartisan resolutions on this subject, such as the position adopted in the 2007 resolution entitled ``Cleaning Up Abandoned Mines.'' In this resolution, the Governors urged Congress to take action to address liability issues and funding concerns. The Governors sent a letter in November 2007 expressing support for the previous version of the bill I am introducing today.

The bill I am filing today will help address this impediment and make it easier for volunteers, who had no role in creating the problem, to help clean up these sites and improve the environment. It does so by providing a new permit program whereby volunteers can, under an approved plan, reduce the water pollution flowing from an abandoned mine. At the same time, volunteers will not be exposed to the full liability and ongoing responsibility provisions of the Clean Water Act.

Unlike other bills that have been introduced on this topic, my bill only addresses Clean Water Act liability and does not waive any other environmental law. This is because I do not believe we have to go that far. There are administrative avenues and options available to Good Samaritans to address compliance without other environmental laws that may apply at these sites. However, such administrative options are not available for Clean Water Act liability. So my bill only addresses this restriction on moving forward on projects to clean up water releases.

The new permit proposed in my bill would help address problems that have frustrated Federal and State agencies throughout the country. As population growth continues near these old mines, more and more risks to public health and safety are likely to occur. We simply must begin to address this issue, not only to improve the environment but also to ensure that our water supplies are safe and usable.

Let me be clear, the bill does not address all the concerns some would-be Good Samaritan may have about initiating cleanup projects. I am committed to continue working to address those additional concerns through additional legislation and in other ways. But the bill I am filing today can make a real difference, and I think it deserves approval without unnecessary delay.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a longer version of my statement.

Mr. President, I rise tonight to announce that I am introducing legislation designed to help promote the cleanup of abandoned and inactive hard rock mines that are a menace to the environment and public health throughout the country, but especially to the West.

In previous sessions of Congress when I was a Member of the House of Representatives, I introduced similar bills. Following the introduction of those previous bills, revisions were made to incorporate a number of changes developed in consultation with a wide range of interested parties. These parties included representatives of the Western Governors' Association, the Environmental Protection Agency, the hardrock mining industry, and environmental groups.

The bill I am introducing today is also the product of further consultations. It represents years of effort to reach agreement on establishing a program to advance the cleanup of polluted water from abandoned mines.

For over one hundred years, miners and prospectors have searched for and developed valuable hardrock minerals, such as gold, silver, and copper. Hardrock mining has played a key role in the history of Colorado and many other States. The resulting mineral wealth has been an important aspect of our economy and the development of essential products that we all take for granted.

However, as all westerners know, this history has too often been marked by a series of ``boom'' times followed by ``busts,'' when mines were no longer profitable. When these busts came, too often the miners would abandon their work and move on, seeking riches over the next mountain. The resulting legacy of unsafe open mine shafts and acid mine drainages can be seen throughout the country and especially on the Western public lands where mineral development was encouraged to help settle our region.

The problems caused by abandoned and inactive mines are very real and very large. They include acidic water draining from old tunnels; heavy metals leaching into streams, killing fish and tainting water supplies; open vertical mine shafts; dangerous highwalls; large open pits; waste rock piles that are unsightly and dangerous; and hazardous dilapidated structures.

Unfortunately, many of our current environmental laws, designed to mitigate the impact from operating hard rock mines, are of limited effectiveness when they are applied to abandoned and inactive mines. As a result, many of these old mines go on polluting streams and rivers and potentially risking the health of people who live nearby or downstream.

Right now, there are two serious obstacles to progress. One is a serious lack of funds for cleaning up sites for which no private person or entity can be held liable. The other obstacle is legal.

While the Clean Water Act is one of the most effective and important of our environmental laws, as applied to abandoned hard rock mines, it can mean that someone undertaking to clean up an abandoned or inactive mine will be exposed to the same liability that would apply to a party responsible for creating the site's problems in the first place. As a result, would-be Good Samaritans understandably have been unwilling to volunteer their services to clean up abandoned and inactive mines.

The Governors of our Western States have recognized the need for action to address this serious problem. They have adopted bipartisan resolutions on this subject, such as the position adopted in the 2007 resolution entitled ``Cleaning Up Abandoned Mines.'' In this resolution, the Governors urged Congress to take action to address liability issues and funding concerns. The Governors sent a letter in November 2007 expressing support for the previous version of the bill I am introducing today.

The bill I am filing today will help address this impediment and make it easier for volunteers, who had no role in creating the problem, to help clean up these sites and improve the environment. It does so by providing a new permit program whereby volunteers can, under an approved plan, reduce the water pollution flowing from an abandoned mine. At the same time, volunteers will not be exposed to the full liability and ongoing responsibility provisions of the Clean Water Act.

Unlike other bills that have been introduced on this topic, my bill only addresses Clean Water Act liability and does not waive any other environmental law. This is because I do not believe we have to go that far. There are administrative avenues and options available to Good Samaritans to address compliance without other environmental laws that may apply at these sites. However, such administrative options are not available for Clean Water Act liability. So my bill only addresses this restriction on moving forward on projects to clean up water releases.

The new permit proposed in my bill would help address problems that have frustrated Federal and State agencies throughout the country. As population growth continues near these old mines, more and more risks to public health and safety are likely to occur. We simply must begin to address this issue, not only to improve the environment but also to ensure that our water supplies are safe and usable.

Let me be clear, the bill does not address all the concerns some would-be Good Samaritan may have about initiating cleanup projects. I am committed to continue working to address those additional concerns through additional legislation and in other ways. But the bill I am filing today can make a real difference, and I think it deserves approval without unnecessary delay.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a longer version of my statement.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to eight young men from Fort Carson in Colorado who perished last weekend in Afghanistan. This was the heaviest U.S. loss of life in a single battle since July 2008, when nine American soldiers were killed in Afghanistan.

In highlighting the lives of these young soldiers, I do not want to diminish the loss of other brave servicemen and women who have given their lives for our country. Before last weekend, Fort Carson alone had lost 270 soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, and we must continue to honor the courage of our fallen, our wounded, and those who continue the fight.

But I hope the stories of these eight young men today speak to the loved ones of all the brave men and women who have lost their lives in Afghanistan and Iraq in recent years. I honor their service, their courage, their dedication, their love of country and family. I thank their wives, husbands, children, parents, and other family members and friends for their support of these brave servicemen and women. And I want to express my deepest sympathy to them as they mourn their loss.

These eight soldiers were all from the same platoon--Bravo Troop of the 3rd Squadron, 61st Cav, 4th Infantry Division, based at Fort Carson. The 4th BCT has worked since May to secure territory throughout a four-province region near Jalalabad in some of Afghanistan's most rugged terrain, training in the nearby hills to prepare for high- altitude battle. A major achievement included providing security for Afghanistan's presidential election in August, enabling local Afghans to go to the polls.

I met with the 4th BCT commander, COL Randy George, back in April in Colorado, before Colonel George and his soldiers departed for Afghanistan. I know how hard Colonel George worked to get these soldiers ready for the fight, and they were ready. These eight young men and their fellow soldiers fought valiantly, taking on about 200 insurgents in their remote outpost in Afghanistan's Nuristan province.

As MAJ Daniel Chandler, the rear detachment commander for the 4th

BCT, said: ``They were attacked, the unit fought bravely, and in the end, they won the day.''

I would like to say a few words about each of these men.

SPC Michael Scusa of Villas, NJ, was 22 years old. He joined the Army after graduating from high school and was on his second tour in Afghanistan. A former teacher said: He was a boy any mom would be proud to have. He leaves behind his wife and 1-year-old son in Colorado, as well as immediate family in New Jersey and Nebraska. SPC Christopher Griffin was 24 years old. He grew up in the small town of Kincheloe, MI. A high school classmate said that the ``whole town'' knew that Christopher would enlist someday. The Army was his calling--and he was very proud of it. He leaves behind his family in Michigan.

PFC Kevin Thomson of Reno, NV, was 22, and joined the Army in April 2008. Friends said that he could make anyone smile, that he valued friendship, and that he had a strong relationship with his mother. His photo hangs in Scolari's grocery store in southeast Reno, where he used to work. He leaves behind his family in Nevada and California.

SGT Vernon Martin of Savannah, GA, was 25 years old, and leaves behind a wife and three children and family in Georgia and New York. He joined the Army 6 years ago and had served in Iraq before being shipped to Afghanistan. His wife said that he hoped to work with kids someday-- and that Vernon was the best thing that ever happened to her and their children.

SPC Stephan Mace of Lovettsville, VA, was 21 years old, and is survived by his family in West Virginia and Virginia. His mother said that he loved sports, wildlife, and the outdoors, and that he always had a smile on his face. He learned about patriotism from his grandfather, who served in the CIA during the Vietnam war, and had a strong love of his country and the military. Stephan's youngest brother just graduated from boot camp at Fort Sill--he wants to join the Army like his brother.

SGT Joshua Kirk--originally of Bonners Ferry, ID--was 30 years old. He leaves behind his wife and 2-year-old daughter in Colorado and mother in Idaho.

SGT Joshua Hardt of Applegate, California, was 24 years old, and was an outgoing and athletic young man--so talented at high school football that his helmet was retired. When Joshua was stationed at Fort Carson, he and his wife moved to Colorado together. Joshua leaves behind his wife and immediate family in California.

SGT Justin Gallegos of Tucson, AZ, was 27 years old. His friends called him ``a man of excitement, courage, leadership, and kindness,'' and a strong man, a go-getter. He leaves behind family and friends in Tucson.

There is so much more to say about each one of these soldiers--and about each of the men and women who have given their lives in the service of our country. Now is a time to honor their memories and pay tribute to them for their tremendous sacrifice and dedication to our Nation. We will not forget you.

Mr. President, today I congratulate the city of Louisville, CO, for being named recently as the top place to live in the Nation by Money Magazine. I know that Colorado is home to many amazing towns, cities and communities. It would be nearly impossible to choose which among them is the top place to live, but I am proud that Louisville received this prestigious honor.

Every 2 years, Money Magazine releases a ranking of cities under 50,000 residents. In compiling these rankings, the editors consider factors such as economic opportunity, schools, affordability of homes, crime rates, and entertainment options for families. This year marks the third consecutive time Louisville has made the list, ranking fifth in 2005 and third in 2007.

In addition to the usual factors, this year's survey had an added component. People from around the nation said that the availability of great jobs was the most important factor to them when deciding where to live. This does not come as a surprise to any of us, but makes Louisville's ranking all that much more impressive for Colorado. While Louisville has certainly seen the effects of the economic downturn, it has been able to continue to support and attract cutting-edge businesses. ConocoPhillips is an example of just one business that has recently decided to put down roots in Louisville, where it plans to build a renewable energy and new technologies research facility. The businesses located in Louisville's Tech Center continue be at the forefront of Colorado's high-tech development, and those located on Louisville's historic Main Street support jobs while continuing traditions started generations ago.

But more than its ability to attract businesses and jobs, the heart of Louisville and what makes it the top place to live is its solid community and commitment to the outdoors. Louisville supports a vibrant summer farmers' market and Friday night Street Faire, which brings to town musical acts from across the West. Earlier this summer, the annual Louisville Fourth of July celebration included the traditional fireworks show and a giveaway of 4,000 hot dogs and bratwursts cooked by the mayor and city council, part of a long-standing tradition. Money Magazine also remarked on Louisville's share of the legendary Colorado sunshine and beautiful open spaces. In a town of 18,000 residents, Louisville has over 2000 acres of open space, 26 parks and nearly 30 miles of trails, most with panoramic views of the Front Range Mountains.

I congratulate both Louisville and the town of Superior, CO, which earned a ranking of 13th on the list. We know that Coloradans are proud of their outstanding communities, and it is only appropriate that Colorado is home to the ``Best Place to Live'' in the Nation. Congratulations again to the residents of Louisville.

Mr. President, due to family-related reasons, I was unable to cast a vote for rollcall vote No. 306, the nomination of Thomas Perez to be Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division, Department of Justice. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' to confirm the nominee.

Mr. President, let me start by thanking my colleague, the Senator from Oregon, for holding this important gathering on the floor of the Senate this morning.

Mr. President, as my fellow freshmen have stressed, health insurance reform is essential in helping us lower spending, chip away at our Federal deficit, and strengthen our economy.

While the reform proposals before us would contain costs across the board, I wish to focus on a particular area of health care reform near and dear to nearly 45 million Americans, and that is Medicare. Reforming how we pay for Medicare and how we spend those valuable taxpayer dollars is one of the biggest cost-containing tools we can include in health care reform, and it will also improve the health of seniors.

Coloradans have rightly asked me and Senator Bennet how health care reform can reduce government spending on Medicare while at the same time strengthen benefits and improve their health. They want to know how they can be getting more as the government spends less.

The answer is that health insurance reform can make our government and us smarter consumers. Because right now, 30 to 50 percent of spending on health care does not make a patient healthier. That is a lot of room for savings.

Let me give you an example. Today, Medicare actually pays doctors and hospitals more to amputate a leg than it does to treat early diabetes and actually prevent that amputation. Our government should be paying for quality outcomes, not writing checks that encourage expensive care that could have been prevented in the first place.

Let me give you a couple of examples of how reform can change these incentives, help improve care for our seniors, and also decrease costs for all of us, the taxpayers.

First, reform can lower the rate of unnecessary hospital readmissions. Right now, one-quarter of all Medicare patients who are discharged from a hospital end up going back into that hospital for the same problem. Health reform would reward hospitals such as Saint Mary's in Grand Junction, CO, which coordinates care and followup to make sure patients do not end up back in the hospital.

Second, reform can hold hospitals accountable if they are not doing enough to reduce the number of patients who develop infections in their facility. Such infections cause seniors to stay in the hospital longer, cost tens of thousands of additional dollars to treat, and--in the worst cases--they are life threatening.

Health care reform would also invest in and encourage innovative ways to deliver more efficient care to seniors. So-called patient-centered care can prevent seniors from being admitted to the hospital in the first place.

You will notice a theme here: The government would be paying less when we pass health reform, and seniors would be healthier for it.

I have not even touched on the billions of dollars per year in waste, fraud, and abuse that health insurance reform will help wring out of the system. I also have not discussed the tough cost-controlling mechanisms, such as a new Medicare payment advisory body to ensure Medicare dollars are being spent efficiently to improve patient care and balance our Federal checkbook.

The reforms we are considering are critical to changing the way the government pays for Medicare so we can ensure its long-term sustainability. The reality is, if we do not act, as was mentioned early this morning--if we keep spending as we do today--Medicare will be bankrupt by 2017, just 8 years from now. That is a sobering thought.

If we take the step to reform our health care system, it will have the immediate effect of extending the life of our Medicare trust fund for 5 more years, and at the same time we will lay down a foundation that will keep costs down in the long term so we can make Medicare sustainable for generations to come.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I praise Dr. Carolyn Porco, a professor at the University of Colorado, senior researcher at the Space Science Institute in Boulder, CO, and leader of the imaging team for the Cassini mission. In this last role, she has a front row seat on some of the most exciting scientific discoveries of today coming from the Cassini spacecraft, which for 5 years has been orbiting and studying Saturn and its Moons. I have submitted for the Record an article about Dr. Porco from the September 21, 2009, edition of the New York Times.

In Colorado, we are extremely proud of our science and technology enterprise. We have 16 Federal laboratories, top-flight research universities and a vibrant private sector pushing the limits on everything from biomedical research to space exploration. But even in this crowded field, Dr. Porco stands out as an exemplary Colorado scientist. She has repeatedly been recognized as one of the top scientific leaders to watch this century both for her scientific accomplishments and her leadership within the scientific community. As the Times article shows, she

has come a long way from her humble Bronx upbringing.

Thinking about Dr. Porco, I am reminded that great scientists are not born. They are made. They are made through the hard work and determination of the young boy who rejects the stigma that somehow being smart is not cool and the young girl who refuses to take a back seat to any boy. They are made through the guidance and support of countless teachers and mentors who receive far too little credit for the service they give to this country. And perhaps most importantly for this body, they are made through the investments we make in research, development and education. If we want the Carolyn Porcos of the future to be here in the United States--and believe me, we do--we must invest now in our research agencies, and we must have well-paid, high-quality teachers in the classroom.

Dr. Porco is a stellar example of what we can accomplish as individuals and as a nation with focus and a little bit of tenacity. I congratulate her on her accomplishments and well-deserved recognition. I, for one, will be following her progress and expecting many more great things from her in the future.

I ask that the New York Times article to which I referred be printed in the Record.

The information follows.

an Odyssey From the Bronx to Saturn's Rings

(By Dennis Overbye)

It is twilight time on Saturn.

Shadows lengthened to stretch thousands of miles across the

planet's famous rings this summer as they slowly tilted edge-

on to the Sun, which they do every 15 years, casting into

sharp relief every bump and wiggle and warp in the buttery

and wafer-thin bands that are the solar system's most popular

scenic attraction.

From her metaphorical perch on the bridge of the Cassini

spacecraft, which has been orbiting Saturn for five years,

Carolyn Porco, who heads the camera team, is ecstatic about

the view. ``It's another one of those things that make you

pinch yourself and say, `Boy am I lucky to be around now,' ''

Dr. Porco said. ``For the first time in 400 years, we're

seeing Saturn's rings in three dimensions.''

On Monday, Dr. Porco and the Cassini team released a grand

view of the rings in all their shadowed glory, including

clumps, spikes, undulations and waves two and a half miles

high on the edge of one ring.

``We always knew it would be good; instead, it's been

extraordinary,'' Dr. Porco said of the cascade of results

that have placed her in a spotlight to which she has become

increasingly accustomed. ``I feel I'm on a great human

adventure,'' she said.

The work may be carried out by robots, Dr. Porco said,

``but we are all explorers.''

``It's thrilling,'' she added, ``and I want everyone to

know how thrilling it is.''

Dr. Porco, 56, a senior researcher at the Space Science

Institute in Boulder, Colo., may be the leader of the camera

team on the $3.4 billion Cassini mission, an adjunct

professor at the University of Colorado and one of Wired

magazine's 15 people who should be advising the president.

But she is also a proud child of the 1964os who has never let

go of the exuberance of that era when President John F.

Kennedy ``said that the sky isn't even the limit,'' as she

puts it, and ``things were unleashed.''

Her entries on the Cassini imaging Web site echo the spirit

of the character Capt. James T. Kirk on ``Star Trek'':

Captain's Log--March 23, 2009

We are almost there. Saturn and we, its companions, have

journeyed together now for nearly five years, in a

circumnavigation of the outer solar system.

Stanley Kubrick's film ``2001: A Space Odyssey'' is still

her favorite movie, and she still loves the Beatles. On a

visit to England in 2001, she and her imaging colleagues

recreated the album cover picture of the Beatles crossing

Abbey Road, with Dr. Porco leading, dressed in white like

John Lennon.

Dr. Porco was born and raised in a Bronx family with four

brothers she partly credits for her subsequent success in

astronomy. ``I'm used to fighting and arguing with males,''

she said.

Her father, an Italian immigrant, drove a bread truck, and

her mother kept house. Dr. Porco attended Cardinal Spellman

High School, the same school that Justice Sonia Sotomayor of

the Supreme Court attended.

She was a studious child and a spiritual seeker--``13 going

on 80''--who lived a lot in her head. Later, as a student at

the State University of New York at Stony Brook, she said she

spent two years as a chanting Buddhist and even went on a

two-week pilgrimage to Japan, where she was the majorette in

a Buddhist marching band, wearing hot pants. ``Now, THOSE

were the days,'' she wrote in an e-mail message.

By then, Dr. Porco was pursuing the future she had glimpsed

at age 13 when she saw Saturn through a neighbor's rooftop

telescope. As a graduate student at the California Institute

of Technolgy, she floundered at first but then got a job

helping to analyze data from the two Voyager spacecrafts,

which toured the outer planets from Jupiter to Neptune from

1978 to 1989.

It was there, said Peter Goldreich, her thesis advisor,

that she demonstrated a knack for picking out important

things. Among them was a discovery that mysterious dark

spokes in Saturn's ring system were connected to the planet's

magnetic field. She did her thesis on aspects of the rings

and how they were shaped by the gravity of tiny moonlets.

Dr. Porco also did a lot of dancing, and played a guitar

and sang in the Titan Equatorial Band, a pickup group of

scientists and science writers named after a feature on

Saturn's largest moon, and later for a group in Tucson called

the Estrogens. ``Three women and one very brave guy,'' she

said.

By the time Voyager passed Neptune in 1989, Dr. Porco was a

research associate at the University of Arizona and leading a

small team trying to make sense of the thin rings around

Neptune.

``She was one of the young rock stars of Voyager,'' said

David Grinspoon, of the Southwest Research Institute in

Boulder, who was a graduate student at Arizona at the time.

But it had not been an easy climb in the overwhelmingly

male and competitive environment of space science. Dr. Porco

once described scientists as ``schoolyard toughs.'' She

recalled pumping herself up to be an ``alpha male'' before

meetings of her ring team.

Even as a graduate student, Dr. Goldreich recalled, Dr.

Porco ``was making a deliberate effort to become tough, and

she succeeded.''

Dr. Porco found an ally and friend in Carl Sagan, the

Cornell astronomer, author and a charter member of the

Voyager team, who defended her once when her Voyager

colleagues teased her about not being married.

Dr. Porco was subsequently hired as a consultant for the

movie ``Contact,'' based on Sagan's novel about a feisty

astronomer, Ellie Arroway, who discovers a signal from

extraterrestrials.

Although plans fell through for Dr. Porco to meet Jodie

Foster, the actress who played Arroway, she did attend a

workshop on the script, where she took strong exception to an

idea that the character would sleep with her adviser. ``She's

a let-it-ripper, isn't she?'' recalled the movie's producer,

Lynda Obst. ``She let it rip.''

Voyager, Dr. Porco said, was the time of her life. ``It had

all the elements of Homeric legend,'' she said. ``It was a

long 12-year odyssey, punctuated by brief episodes of great

discovery and conquest. And then it was back in the boat,

oars in the water, until years later we reached our next port

of call. It was a defining experience for many of us, and

certainly for me.''

The chance to channel Dr. Porco's inner Captain Kirk

continued with the $3.4 billion Cassini mission, which was

launched on a roundabout course toward Saturn in 1997 and

arrived in 2004. Being on the imaging team is like standing

on the bridge of the spaceship, she said. ``We have the

windows,'' she said. ``That's what we're responsible for.''

Dr. Porco was chosen over more senior astronomers to head

the Cassini camera team in 1990, one of 12 team leaders for

the spacecraft. The job swallowed her life, she said, and

required her hard-won toughness. ``Our experiment has been

spectacularly successful,'' she said, ``and that would never

have happened if I let people roll over me.''

But Dr. Porco said it had all been worthwhile. ``Between my

participation in Voyager and my role in Cassini,'' she said,

``when comes the time, I will die a happy and gratified

woman.''

One of the most thrilling Cassini moments was in 2004 when

the Huygens probe detached from Cassini and landed on

Saturn's largest moon, Titan, a strange, frigid world where

rocks are made of ice, and rivers and oceans are formed of

what Dr. Porco has described as ``paint thinner.''

Last month, astronomers announced that they had detected

methane storms on Titan, a cloudy moon that has an atmosphere

denser than that of Earth.

They also discovered plumes erupting from the south pole of

another Saturn moon, Enceladus, suggesting the presence of

underground water and prompting talk about a future mission

to cruise through the plumes. ``Should we ever discover that

life has arisen twice,'' Dr. Porco said, ``that would be a

game-changer.''

The Titan landing, Dr. Porco said in a talk in 2007, should

have been celebrated with parades in every major city.

That talk led to another movie adventure. J. J. Abrams, the

producer of the television series ``Lost,'' was listening and

asked Dr. Porco to consult on his ``Star Trek'' movie. On a

visit to the set, she suggested that a scene in which the

Starship Enterprise materialized inside clouds be set on

Titan. The scene made it onto the cover of Cinefex, a

magazine about special effects in films.

In an interview, Mr. Abrams said: ``She helped us feel

connected to what Gene Roddenberry had been trying to do.

This is our future,'' referring the creator of ``Star Trek.''

Cassini endures, and Dr. Porco is a member of the team for

the New Horizons spacecraft, which is scheduled to arrive at

Pluto in 2015. But she said she hoped to spend more of her

time popularizing science and hopes to write a book about

Cassini.

``To my mind,'' Dr. Porco said, ``most people go through

life recoiling from its best

parts. They miss the enrichment that just a basic knowledge

of the physical world can bring to the most ordinary

experiences. It's like there's a pulsating, hidden world,

governed by ancient laws and principles, underlying

everything around us--from the movements of electrical

charges to the motions of the planets--and most people are

completely unaware of it.

``To me, that's a shame.''