Floor Statements

Mr. President, this week the Senate focuses on the Federal budget and folks at home are going to hear a lot about reserve funds and reconciliation and a lot of other technical budget lingo. A reserve fund, for example, is not some kind of checking account where you can go get a bunch of money to spend on Government programs. It is more like a work plan that is used to structure how difficult policy judgments are made on important issues.

Budget reconciliation is perhaps even more incomprehensible to folks. That is why I want to spend a few minutes this afternoon talking about what it means, particularly in terms of health care reform, which we all understand is a particularly pressing domestic concern. Budget reconciliation, strictly speaking, means reconciling Government policy with budget targets. If you were to pursue health care reform using budget reconciliation, you would, under the Senate rules, need only a majority vote here in the Senate as opposed to 60 votes, which is often needed in the Senate to cut off debate. So Senators now find themselves being buttonholed by reporters for something of a health care interrogation. The question invariably is, is a Senator in favor of using reconciliation for health care reform?

The theory, I gather, is if a Senator is in favor of using budget reconciliation, the Senator is just in favor of bullying health care reform through the Senate with a narrow majority. And somehow, if a Senator is not for using reconciliation on health care reform, that Senator is not sympathetic to the cause of fixing the American health care system.

It is my view that, like most of these kinds of issues, this is vastly oversimplifying the case. In my view, I have spent more than 5 years trying to make the issue of reconciliation on health care irrelevant. Senator Bennett and I, for example, have teamed up, now joined by 14 colleagues of both political parties, evenly divided, because we believe it is critically important to address this issue of health care reform in a bipartisan way.

Every time we talk about this issue, we talk about our desire to work with the chairman of the Finance Committee. I see the ranking minority member on the floor, Senator Grassley. It is our desire to work with Chairman Baucus and Senator Grassley and Chairman Kennedy and our colleague from Wyoming, Senator Enzi. Everything we have worked toward in this area of health care reform has been pointed toward the goal of making reconciliation irrelevant because we wish to be part of an effort, working with Chairman Baucus and Senator Grassley and Chairman Kennedy and Senator Enzi, on a path to getting 68 to 70 votes here in the Senate so we can have an enduring and bipartisan coalition in place to fix American health care.

I will tell you, on the basis of visiting most of our colleagues in their office to listen to them on the issue of health care reform, I think it is possible to find a path to 60 to 70 votes on this critical domestic question. I think there is a growing consensus here in the Senate that both political parties have been right on major concerns they have about American health care. I think there is a growing awareness that our party, the Democratic Party, has been right on the issue of ensuring that all Americans have good quality, affordable coverage. If you don't do that, what happens is the people who are uninsured shift their bills to the insured and they shift the most expensive bills. So you cannot fix this system unless you get all Americans good quality, affordable coverage.

I think Republicans have had a very valid point with respect to giving flexibility to the private sector on the issue of health care. It is important, so as to not freeze innovation, to make sure there are not price controls, there are not global budgets so there are plenty of private sector choices, the way Members have with respect to this issue. It is something of a philosophical truce. Democrats have been right on the issue of making sure that you expand coverage to stop the cost shifting and deal with the question of holding down costs which is so important to American business and tough global financial markets. And Republicans have had a valid point with respect to the role of the private sector.

I think there is a growing consensus about how, if you are going to contain costs in American health care, you have to go to areas that change the incentives, that drive the behavior in American health care. Right now, most individuals don't even have a choice with respect to their health care. If they are lucky enough to have employer-based coverage, they don't get a choice. So they are already in a position, in my view, that is not fair and certainly is not in sync in a way that works for the Members of the Senate. The distinguished President of the Senate and every other Member come here and get plenty of private sector choices for their health care, and I think there is a growing sense here in the Senate that those kinds of choices ought to be available to all Americans. Fourteen Senators are behind legislation that would do that. I point out the very fine white paper offered on American health care by the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee envisions Americans having more choices for their coverage, the way Members of Congress have.

We are going to talk about a lot of issues this week with respect to the budget. You are going to hear a lot about reserve funds and reconciliation. I hope that as colleagues go through this topic and issues related to it, the rules with respect to how you are going to pay for American health care, I hope there will be a recognition that a lot of Senators wish to make the issue of reconciliation on health care irrelevant.

Senator Bennett and I, for example, have received a report from the Congressional Budget Office--it is on my Web site--making it clear that our proposal is revenue neutral 2 years in and in the third year starts bending the cost curve downward. The way we get those savings, in most particulars, is through approaches that Chairman Baucus has advocated in the white paper I have mentioned here on the floor.

There are plenty of opportunities for finding common ground on this budget, on bringing Democrats and Republicans together on key issues such as

health care, on making the whole question of reconciliation go by the boards because Democrats and Republicans have come together.

I want to close by commending Chairman Conrad for the approach he has taken with respect to the budget and for his desire, particularly, to work in the health care area of the budget in a bipartisan way. He worked with me, for example, on the issue of suggesting in the budget that periodic reports would have to be made with respect to health cost containment. That sends a strong message that the Senate is not going to wait around for 10 years or so to see if there are any savings. Chairman Conrad has added language to make it clear that on an ongoing basis there should be an effort to wring out savings from the existing $2.5 trillion being spent on American health care this year. Chairman Conrad does not want to sit around and wait for 10 or 12 or 15 years to see if anybody can save some money on American health care. He has picked up, as the Congressional Budget Office said in their report to Senator Bennett and me and our colleagues, there are savings that can be made over the next few years.

There is enough money being spent on American health care today. It is not being spent in the right places. This year we will spend $2.5 trillion on health care. There are 305 million of us. If you divide 305 million into $2.5 trillion, you can go out and hire a doctor for every seven families in the United States. You could hire a doctor for every family in the State of Virginia or Oregon or elsewhere, pay the doctor $225,000 a year, and invariably when I bring this up to physicians, they say: Where can I go to get my 7 families?

We spend enough on health care. We don't spend it in the right places. Chairman Conrad, by approaching the health care issue as he has in this budget, allows us to first focus on the savings that can be produced out of the existing $2.5 trillion. I commend Chairman Conrad for working with us in that fashion.

I also commend the ranking minority member for his work on health care as well. He is a cosponsor of the Healthy Americans Act and has made it very clear that he wants to work with Chairman Baucus and Senator Grassley and Chairman Kennedy and Senator Enzi so that we bring the Senate together in a bipartisan fashion.

There is much to work with here. As Senators do get buttonholed by reporters with respect to the issue of whether they are in favor of using reconciliation for health reform, I hope Senators will see that this is not a yes or no answer but that there is a large and bipartisan group of us who want to pass health care reform this year on President Obama's timetable--this year--but we want to do it by bringing Democrats and Republicans together and making the issue of reconciliation on the issue of health care reform irrelevant.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today, I am joining my colleagues from Maine, Connecticut, and Delaware, in introducing the Protect Children from Dangerous Lighters Act, a ban on novelty cigarette lighters.

Novelty lighters, also known as toy-like lighters, are cigarette lighters that look like small children's toys or regular household items. In the hands of small children they can be very dangerous. Because they are so well disguised as toys, a child could easily pick one up to play with it without realizing that it could be very hazardous.

The result of this mistake can be deadly: In Oregon, two boys were playing with a novelty lighter disguised as a toy dolphin and accidently started a serious fire, causing the death of one boy and the permanent brain damage of the other. Also in Oregon, a mother suffered third degree burns on her foot when her child was playing with a novelty lighter shaped like a small toy Christmas tree and set a bed on fire.

Incidents like these happen all over the country. In Maine, a young boy took a miniature baseball bat off a shelf at a convenience store, accidentally ignited a flame and seared his eyebrow. In North Carolina, a boy sustained second degree burns after playing with a novelty lighter that looked like a toy cell phone. In one of the most tragic examples, a 2-year-old and a 15-month-old from Arkansas were killed in a fire they accidently started while playing with a novelty lighter shaped like a toy motorcycle.

These injuries and deaths cry out to us to take action and remove these dangerous lighters from shelves everywhere.

A ban on novelty lighters would require the Consumer Product Safety Commission to treat novelty lighters as a banned hazardous substance. That means novelty lighters will not be manufactured, imported, sold, or given away as promotional gifts anywhere in this country. This measure will keep novelty lighters out of the hands of children and prevent injuries like those that have already brought tragedy to too many families.

A number of states and cities have taken it upon themselves to ban these dangerous lighters. Oregon and four other States have already enacted such bans, and thirteen other states are currently considering similar measures. It is clear that this is an important safety issue, and it is time for the Federal Government to pass this bill so that children in all states will be protected.

A Federal ban on novelty lighters has widespread, nationwide support. Along with the Oregon Fire Marshal, the National Association of Fire Marshals supports a federal ban on these lighters and has been active in promoting public awareness on this issue. I want to thank the Congressional Fire Services Institute for their leadership in building support for this bill. The cigarette lighter industry, represented by the Lighter Association, is a partner in supporting a ban on novelty lighters. Finally, consumer groups, such as Safe Kids USA and others have endorsed this approach.

Congress should act now to avoid the suffering caused by the senseless deaths and serious injuries that result from novelty lighters being mistaken for toys. Dangerous tools containing flammable fuel should not be dressed up in packages that are attractive to children; especially when young children do not have the capacity to differentiate these lighters from common toys. Please join me in banning dangerous novelty lighters by cosponsoring the Protect Children from Dangerous Lighters Act.

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

Mr. President, today, I am joining my colleagues from Maine, Connecticut, and Delaware, in introducing the Protect Children from Dangerous Lighters Act, a ban on novelty cigarette lighters.

Novelty lighters, also known as toy-like lighters, are cigarette lighters that look like small children's toys or regular household items. In the hands of small children they can be very dangerous. Because they are so well disguised as toys, a child could easily pick one up to play with it without realizing that it could be very hazardous.

The result of this mistake can be deadly: In Oregon, two boys were playing with a novelty lighter disguised as a toy dolphin and accidently started a serious fire, causing the death of one boy and the permanent brain damage of the other. Also in Oregon, a mother suffered third degree burns on her foot when her child was playing with a novelty lighter shaped like a small toy Christmas tree and set a bed on fire.

Incidents like these happen all over the country. In Maine, a young boy took a miniature baseball bat off a shelf at a convenience store, accidentally ignited a flame and seared his eyebrow. In North Carolina, a boy sustained second degree burns after playing with a novelty lighter that looked like a toy cell phone. In one of the most tragic examples, a 2-year-old and a 15-month-old from Arkansas were killed in a fire they accidently started while playing with a novelty lighter shaped like a toy motorcycle.

These injuries and deaths cry out to us to take action and remove these dangerous lighters from shelves everywhere.

A ban on novelty lighters would require the Consumer Product Safety Commission to treat novelty lighters as a banned hazardous substance. That means novelty lighters will not be manufactured, imported, sold, or given away as promotional gifts anywhere in this country. This measure will keep novelty lighters out of the hands of children and prevent injuries like those that have already brought tragedy to too many families.

A number of states and cities have taken it upon themselves to ban these dangerous lighters. Oregon and four other States have already enacted such bans, and thirteen other states are currently considering similar measures. It is clear that this is an important safety issue, and it is time for the Federal Government to pass this bill so that children in all states will be protected.

A Federal ban on novelty lighters has widespread, nationwide support. Along with the Oregon Fire Marshal, the National Association of Fire Marshals supports a federal ban on these lighters and has been active in promoting public awareness on this issue. I want to thank the Congressional Fire Services Institute for their leadership in building support for this bill. The cigarette lighter industry, represented by the Lighter Association, is a partner in supporting a ban on novelty lighters. Finally, consumer groups, such as Safe Kids USA and others have endorsed this approach.

Congress should act now to avoid the suffering caused by the senseless deaths and serious injuries that result from novelty lighters being mistaken for toys. Dangerous tools containing flammable fuel should not be dressed up in packages that are attractive to children; especially when young children do not have the capacity to differentiate these lighters from common toys. Please join me in banning dangerous novelty lighters by cosponsoring the Protect Children from Dangerous Lighters Act.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak after Senator Cornyn.

Madam President, I rise today to urge colleagues to support Chairman Bingaman on the upcoming amendments and to speak in favor of this extraordinarily important public lands package.

This legislation would designate over 2 million acres of our great country as wilderness, surpassing the wilderness acreage designated by the last three sessions combined. The wilderness protected in this bill spans nine States, including my home State of Oregon. In addition, it adds close to 1,100 miles to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System in seven States--again including Oregon.

It is going to allow for much needed upgrades to national trails, monuments, national conservation areas, oceans, the National Landscape Conservation System, forest landscape restoration, and water resources. Most significantly, the bills contained in this legislation would serve to protect our public lands from encroachment and preserve them for future generations to cherish and enjoy.

The legislation includes provisions that are very near and dear to our country but especially to Oregonians. It includes the Lewis and Clark Mount Hood Wilderness Act of 2007, the Copper Salmon Wilderness Act, the Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument Voluntary and Equitable Grazing Conflict Resolution Act, the Oregon Badlands Wilderness Act of 2008, and the Spring Basin Wilderness Act of 2008.

Today, I also wish to say that it is important to protect these special places because it will also be good for our economy to go forward with this legislation. This is legislation that is important to do whether we are in good times or in bad times--whether the economy is weak or strong. Because the nation's public lands of course, have enduring benefits, benefits we are going to pass on to our children long after these challenging days become a footnote in our country's history. So protecting public lands is a smart thing to do, and it is especially important given the significant economic benefits you will see generated by this legislation. And there are many that know, this is also a smart thing to be doing in a recession because our public lands--accessible to all for free or for a small fee--are where America's families turn for affordable recreation. And that recreation in turn, fuels the economy in many communities that rely on our nation's public lands.

Appreciating the outdoors is not just a passion for Oregonians and the people of our country, it is also an economic engine, which is more urgently needed than ever in these challenging economic times. It is certainly an economic engine in my State, where the unemployment rate is over 10 percent.

So passing this legislation isn't just the right thing to do morally--it is the right thing to do economically.

In these times, folks have been losing their jobs. They do not know where their next job is going to come from. The fact is, there are significant economic benefits through recreation generated by this legislation. The Outdoor Industry Association, which closely tracks American's use of the outdoors and all the economic engine that encourages, has found recently that American's participation in outdoor activities increased in 2007 to 50 percent.

They found that the national active outdoor recreation economy contributes $730 billion annually to our Nation's economy; it supports nearly 6.5 million jobs; it generates $49 billion in annual national tax revenue; and produces almost $300 billion annually in retail sales and services across the country. In Oregon, it contributes more than $5.8 billion annually to Oregon's economy.

So outdoor recreation, what this legislation is going to promote, is a huge economic bonanza for our Nation. I can tell you, because colleagues have asked about Oregon, one of the national treasures this bill would protect, Mt. Hood, has had a banner skiing season. The Forest Service estimates visitation to the Mt. Hood National Forest is more than 2 million visitors a year, making it one of the most popular in our country.

Some other areas that we protect in this bill, the Badlands and Spring Basin are near Central Oregon--a region that has a well-earned reputation as a hub for diverse outdoor recreation. They are also on Bureau of Land Management Lands, ``BLM.'' The BLM estimated that in Oregon alone, BLM lands had 8.3 million recreation visits. Those visits brought people, jobs and investment to the surrounding towns.

The same is true in the other two areas this legislation would protect--the Cascade Siskiyou National Monument, where we would create a new 23,000 acre Soda Mountain Wilderness and Copper Salmon, where fishermen from all over the country journey to fish in one of the last intact watersheds on the southwestern Oregon Coast.

A number of Senators have worked hard to make this legislation possible. I wish to thank them. And certainly Michele Miranda in our office, Mary Gautreaux, and my chief of staff, Josh Kardon, who has tried for years and years to bring together community leaders, all deserve special credit.

We have gems in this legislation that are going to make for recreational industry meccas. I hope that all colleagues will support Chairman Bingaman when the amendments come up and ultimately support this legislation. We ought to pass this legislation. It is time to do it for millions of Americans and for future generations enjoying these great treasures, and we ought to do it because this legislation will also help stoke the economic engine for our country.

I know colleagues are waiting too. I wish to thank Chairman Bingaman for this opportunity to speak. I urge all colleagues to support Chairman Bingaman with respect to these amendments and get this bill passed in the Senate today.

I thank the Senator. I appreciate the co-sponsorship of the Senator from New Hampshire. The only way to produce enduring health reform is to work in a bipartisan manner. Unlike past efforts, through the Healthy Americans Act, there is bi-partisan agreement on the principal issues. Republicans have moved to support covering everyone and Democrats have moved to support private choices.

I appreciate Senator Gregg's commitment to moving this process forward and the thoughtfulness in his suggestions. I am happy to work with you and all of our other co-sponsors to continue to make improvements to the bill. While there are challenges on the specifics, as Senator Gregg has said, there's a lot to work with. Senator Gregg and I agree on fiscal responsibility, prevention, wellness, chronic care management, modernizing the tax code, improving the quality of care, containing costs, personal responsibility, and the importance of covering everyone.

I think Senator Gregg's arguments on these points make a lot of sense. There's more to be said for reviewing alternative proposals such as a default enrollment policy instead of an individual mandate and the role of FDA labeling in comparative effectiveness.

In light of the reports earlier this week that President Obama's health reform plan is estimated to cost more than $1.5 trillion over the next 10 years, it is better not to overpromise and undermine cost containment. It is important that the Congress find an appropriate benefit standard that will ensure quality coverage for all Americans that will not undermine our efforts to contain costs. I want to thank Senator Gregg for his thoughtful contributions and his willingness to work with me, Senator Bennett and our bipartisan group. It's our plan to work closely with our leaders--Chairman Baucus, Ranking Member Grassley, Chairman Kennedy, and Ranking Member Enzi--to end 60 years of gridlock.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join today with my colleague from Maine, Senator Snowe, to introduce the Nanotechnology Innovation and Prize Competition Act of 2009.

As Co-Chair of the Congressional Nanotechnology Caucus, and former Chair of the Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Innovation, I have worked long and hard to advance U.S. competitiveness in nanotechnology. Nanotech is a rapidly developing field that offers a wide range of benefits to the country. It can create jobs, expand the economy, and strengthen America's position as a global leader in technological innovation. At this time, when older industries are faltering and the economy is struggling, Congress must act to open new doors, help industry to move into new fields, and work to unlock new manufacturing potential.

Nanotechnology is redefining the global economy and delivering revolutionary change through an amazing array of technological innovations. There is virtually no industry that will not be improved by the advances that are possible with nanotechnology. But to unlock the full benefits of nanotechnology's capabilities, the Federal Government must do more to partner with our nation's innovative entrepreneurs, engineers, and scientists. To that end, I am proposing, along with Senator Snowe, legislation that will create an X-Prize competition in nanotechnology.

Many people have heard of the X-Prize, a recent and high-profile example of a prize competition like the one Sen. Snowe and I are proposing today. The X-Prize was established in 1996 and set up a $10 million prize fund for the first team who could make civilian space flight a reality. The award was successfully claimed just eight years later. But that was not the only achievement the X-Prize accomplished. During that span of time, the $10 million prize stimulated over $100 million in research and development by the competitors.

Successful prize competitions are not limited to the X-Prize. We have seen the value of these kinds of competitions before. One of the most famous was the Orteig prize, which was to be awarded to the first person to fly non-stop across the Atlantic Ocean. Claimed, of course, by Charles Lindbergh in 1927, the Orteig prize stimulated private investment 16 times greater than the amount of the prize. Imagine what kind of explosion in investment and innovation we could achieve in nanotechnology with the competition we're proposing today.

By establishing this nanotechnology prize competition, the Federal Government will promote public-private cooperation to spur investment in key areas and help solve critical problems. The very first prize competition was, in fact, a Government sponsored competition that produced a revolutionary technological breakthrough. In 1714, the British Parliament established a prize for determining a ship's longitude at sea. At the time, the inability to accurately determine longitude was causing many ships to become lost. Solving this critical problem by creating a competition to find the answer paved the way to British naval superiority.

Today, other Government sponsored prize competitions are driving technological breakthroughs and successes. For example, the DARPA Grand Challenge and Urban Challenge have stimulated tremendous advances in remotely-controlled vehicle technology.

The Nanotechnology Innovation and Prize Competition Act is a vital tool to help ensure that public and private resources will be utilized in a coordinated way and will be devoted to solving the complex and pressing problems that America faces today. This bill will also spur technological investment and create jobs here at home. Through this prize competition, the government will be able to leverage its resources and focus the intellectual and economic capacity of our nation's best and brightest entrepreneurs on finding the big answers we need in the smallest of technologies--nanotechnology.

The Nanotechnology Innovation and Prize Competition Act creates four priority areas for the establishment of prize competitions: green nanotechnology, alternative energy applications, improvements in human health, and the commercialization of consumer products. In each of these areas, nanotechnology holds the promise of tremendous breakthroughs if the necessary resources are devoted. This competition will make sure we get started as soon as possible on finding those breakthroughs. We all know that the

competitive spirit is one of the strengths of our country. This bill will ignite that spirit in nanotech.

Again, I thank my colleague from Maine for her help and cooperation in introducing this bill. I also want to thank the Woodrow Wilson Center and the X-PRIZE Foundation for their work in helping to develop this bill. I look forward to working with the Commerce Committee, other members of the Congressional Nanotechnology Caucus, the Obama Administration, and the entire nanotech community to reauthorize the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act in the 111th Congress.

I urge all my colleagues to support innovation and promote entrepreneurial competition by cosponsoring this legislation.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to join today with my colleague from Maine, Senator Snowe, to introduce the Nanotechnology Innovation and Prize Competition Act of 2009.

As Co-Chair of the Congressional Nanotechnology Caucus, and former Chair of the Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Innovation, I have worked long and hard to advance U.S. competitiveness in nanotechnology. Nanotech is a rapidly developing field that offers a wide range of benefits to the country. It can create jobs, expand the economy, and strengthen America's position as a global leader in technological innovation. At this time, when older industries are faltering and the economy is struggling, Congress must act to open new doors, help industry to move into new fields, and work to unlock new manufacturing potential.

Nanotechnology is redefining the global economy and delivering revolutionary change through an amazing array of technological innovations. There is virtually no industry that will not be improved by the advances that are possible with nanotechnology. But to unlock the full benefits of nanotechnology's capabilities, the Federal Government must do more to partner with our nation's innovative entrepreneurs, engineers, and scientists. To that end, I am proposing, along with Senator Snowe, legislation that will create an X-Prize competition in nanotechnology.

Many people have heard of the X-Prize, a recent and high-profile example of a prize competition like the one Sen. Snowe and I are proposing today. The X-Prize was established in 1996 and set up a $10 million prize fund for the first team who could make civilian space flight a reality. The award was successfully claimed just eight years later. But that was not the only achievement the X-Prize accomplished. During that span of time, the $10 million prize stimulated over $100 million in research and development by the competitors.

Successful prize competitions are not limited to the X-Prize. We have seen the value of these kinds of competitions before. One of the most famous was the Orteig prize, which was to be awarded to the first person to fly non-stop across the Atlantic Ocean. Claimed, of course, by Charles Lindbergh in 1927, the Orteig prize stimulated private investment 16 times greater than the amount of the prize. Imagine what kind of explosion in investment and innovation we could achieve in nanotechnology with the competition we're proposing today.

By establishing this nanotechnology prize competition, the Federal Government will promote public-private cooperation to spur investment in key areas and help solve critical problems. The very first prize competition was, in fact, a Government sponsored competition that produced a revolutionary technological breakthrough. In 1714, the British Parliament established a prize for determining a ship's longitude at sea. At the time, the inability to accurately determine longitude was causing many ships to become lost. Solving this critical problem by creating a competition to find the answer paved the way to British naval superiority.

Today, other Government sponsored prize competitions are driving technological breakthroughs and successes. For example, the DARPA Grand Challenge and Urban Challenge have stimulated tremendous advances in remotely-controlled vehicle technology.

The Nanotechnology Innovation and Prize Competition Act is a vital tool to help ensure that public and private resources will be utilized in a coordinated way and will be devoted to solving the complex and pressing problems that America faces today. This bill will also spur technological investment and create jobs here at home. Through this prize competition, the government will be able to leverage its resources and focus the intellectual and economic capacity of our nation's best and brightest entrepreneurs on finding the big answers we need in the smallest of technologies--nanotechnology.

The Nanotechnology Innovation and Prize Competition Act creates four priority areas for the establishment of prize competitions: green nanotechnology, alternative energy applications, improvements in human health, and the commercialization of consumer products. In each of these areas, nanotechnology holds the promise of tremendous breakthroughs if the necessary resources are devoted. This competition will make sure we get started as soon as possible on finding those breakthroughs. We all know that the

competitive spirit is one of the strengths of our country. This bill will ignite that spirit in nanotech.

Again, I thank my colleague from Maine for her help and cooperation in introducing this bill. I also want to thank the Woodrow Wilson Center and the X-PRIZE Foundation for their work in helping to develop this bill. I look forward to working with the Commerce Committee, other members of the Congressional Nanotechnology Caucus, the Obama Administration, and the entire nanotech community to reauthorize the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act in the 111th Congress.

I urge all my colleagues to support innovation and promote entrepreneurial competition by cosponsoring this legislation.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of a resolution that I am offering with my colleagues, Senators Brownback, Menendez, Snowe, and Whitehouse. This resolution condemns the Iranian government's persecution of its own Baha'i community and urges the Obama administration to speak out strongly against this continued injustice.

The Baha'i Faith, the world's youngest independent monotheistic religion, was founded in Iran in 1844. Today, it is practiced by more than 5 million people across the planet, from Bangalore, India to Beaverton, Oregon. Roughly 300,000 of these adherents still live in Iran. Although Baha'i teachings emphasize equality, unity, and peace, Iranian authorities have viewed the religion as an apostasy and have treated it as a threat since the beginning.

The current Islamic Republic has been particularly hostile to Baha'i practitioners since its establishment in 1979. In 1983, Iran's government formally banned all Baha'i religious institutions and criminalized membership in them and service to them. The regime has officially recognized Christians, Jews, and Zoroastrians as religious minorities. It refuses to extend this same status to the Baha'is, even though they make up Iran's largest religious minority. According to the State Department's 2008 International Religious Freedom Report, the regime continues to create ``a threatening atmosphere for nearly all non-Shi'a religious groups, most notably for Baha'is.'' The government routinely seizes personal property from members of the Baha'i community, denies access to education and employment opportunities, and detains Baha'is based solely on their religious beliefs.

Last year, the Iranian regime imprisoned seven leaders of the Baha'i community. In February 2009, Tehran's deputy prosecutor announced that these seven leaders would be tried on charges of ``espionage for Israel, insulting religious sanctities, and propaganda against the Islamic Republic.'' Not surprisingly, the regime provided no evidence to support these preposterous accusations and has refused to allow a lawyer for the seven to even meet with them. These actions are clear and unambiguous violations of Iran's international commitments under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Some in the international community have already condemned this mockery of justice, and rightly so. My colleagues and I believe the time has now come to add the United States Senate to this growing chorus of voices.

Our resolution is simple and straightforward. It denounces the Iranian government's persecution of the Baha'is and calls on the regime to immediately release all prisoners held for their religious beliefs, including the seven Baha'i leaders. It further calls on President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to work with the international community in condemning the Iranian regime for its repeated human rights violations.

I hope that colleagues will join me and Senators Brownback, Menendez, Snowe, and Whitehouse in supporting this commonsense resolution.

Mr. President, there is an old saying about ``not seeing the forest for the trees'' that applies to the current myopic policies on biomass from Federal lands. Right now, instead of helping to provide part of the solution to our Nation's dependence on foreign oil, biomass from Federal lands allowed to build up in the woods or worse become fuel for catastrophic fires. Instead of being part of the solution for energy independence, it is creating a problem for forest management and communities that border on Federal forests.

I rise today to introduce a bill that would allow woody debris and plant material--or ``biomass''--from Federal lands to become part of the solution to America's energy problems and to create new economic opportunities to help sustain our rural communities. This legislation would amend the Clean Air Act to modify the definition of the term ``renewable biomass'' contained in the Federal Renewable Fuel Standard so that biomass from Federal lands is eligible as a fuel source under this standard.

Today, biomass from Federal lands cannot be counted as a renewable transportation fuel. The change I am proposing would help tackle a number of critical problems--expanding the universe of biomass that can be used for fuel, helping pay for programs to reduce dangerous levels of dead and dying trees that fuel wildfires, thinning unhealthy, second growth forests, providing low-carbon fuels to address climate change, and create jobs in increasingly difficult economic times.

The reason we need this legislation goes back to the 2007 energy bill--the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. In that legislation, the Congress dramatically expanded the Federal mandate for the use of renewable biofuels, such as ethanol from corn and cellulose, and biodiesel. Unfortunately, this legislation included a definition of renewable biomass that is now part of the Clean Air Act which excluded slash and thinning byproducts from Federal lands--all Federal lands. This occurred despite the bipartisan work we had undertaken here in the Senate and in the Energy and Natural Resources Committee to come up with a more commonsense definition. The result is that biomass from millions of acres of Federal lands are arbitrarily excluded from serving as feedstock for the very renewable biofuels that the mandate requires.

Changing the definition of ``renewable biomass'' for the renewable fuels standard is very important to states like Oregon, where the Federal Government owns much of the land and where our forests are choked and overstocked. Critical work needs to take

place in these forests and utilizing the excess biomass--small diameter trees, limbs and debris--for energy will help us get that work accomplished while getting us the added benefit of green energy. These byproducts are often a critical energy source for rural Americans, who use them in environmentally-friendly wood pellet stoves. But more importantly, they are part of the future of clean, renewable fuels--as further development of cellulosic ethanol will allow us to use these waste materials reclaimed literally from the forest and mill floors. Conversely, by excluding biomass from Federal lands, the existing mandate places ever more weight on the use of biomass from other sources, including the use of food-based corn and grains and private forests.

My bill seeks to utilize biomass from Federal lands in an environmentally responsible way. It will protect those natural resources that need to be protected, while allowing renewable biomass from Federal lands to contribute to our Nation's energy mix. First, my bill would allow biomass from National Forests and Bureau of Land Management forests to qualify as renewable biomass under the Federal Renewable Fuels Standard, but it would continue to exclude old growth and biomass from National Parks, Wilderness Areas and other environmentally protected areas. Second, the bill would require Federal land managers to ensure that the quantities of biomass harvested even from these eligible National Forest and BLM lands are sustainable. While biomass holds great potential as a clean source of energy, I want to ensure that it gets harvested at levels that are truly sustainable and that biofuels and bioenergy projects dependent on renewable biomass are sized appropriately so that we protect our forests and natural resources and ensure that biofuels production facilities will not wither and die because of inadequate feedstock supplies.

I want to be clear that my legislation only addresses the question of how the Renewable Fuel Standard treats biomass from Federal lands. It does not and it is not intended to reopen or overhaul the Renewable Fuels Standard as a whole. It is simply a targeted fix for our Federal public lands.

As we move forward with new energy legislation and work on developing additional green energy solutions, I want to ensure that renewable biomass is genuinely one of those solutions, including biomass from Federal lands. It is my hope that beyond fixing the definition in the Clean Air Act for the Renewable Fuels Standard, Congress will include a comparable definition in legislation addressing climate change and renewable electricity production requirements.

I look forward to working with my colleagues here in the Senate and in the House of Representatives to advance a biomass definition that balances sound energy policy with practical and sensible use of our forests.

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

Mr. President, there is an old saying about ``not seeing the forest for the trees'' that applies to the current myopic policies on biomass from Federal lands. Right now, instead of helping to provide part of the solution to our Nation's dependence on foreign oil, biomass from Federal lands allowed to build up in the woods or worse become fuel for catastrophic fires. Instead of being part of the solution for energy independence, it is creating a problem for forest management and communities that border on Federal forests.

I rise today to introduce a bill that would allow woody debris and plant material--or ``biomass''--from Federal lands to become part of the solution to America's energy problems and to create new economic opportunities to help sustain our rural communities. This legislation would amend the Clean Air Act to modify the definition of the term ``renewable biomass'' contained in the Federal Renewable Fuel Standard so that biomass from Federal lands is eligible as a fuel source under this standard.

Today, biomass from Federal lands cannot be counted as a renewable transportation fuel. The change I am proposing would help tackle a number of critical problems--expanding the universe of biomass that can be used for fuel, helping pay for programs to reduce dangerous levels of dead and dying trees that fuel wildfires, thinning unhealthy, second growth forests, providing low-carbon fuels to address climate change, and create jobs in increasingly difficult economic times.

The reason we need this legislation goes back to the 2007 energy bill--the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. In that legislation, the Congress dramatically expanded the Federal mandate for the use of renewable biofuels, such as ethanol from corn and cellulose, and biodiesel. Unfortunately, this legislation included a definition of renewable biomass that is now part of the Clean Air Act which excluded slash and thinning byproducts from Federal lands--all Federal lands. This occurred despite the bipartisan work we had undertaken here in the Senate and in the Energy and Natural Resources Committee to come up with a more commonsense definition. The result is that biomass from millions of acres of Federal lands are arbitrarily excluded from serving as feedstock for the very renewable biofuels that the mandate requires.

Changing the definition of ``renewable biomass'' for the renewable fuels standard is very important to states like Oregon, where the Federal Government owns much of the land and where our forests are choked and overstocked. Critical work needs to take

place in these forests and utilizing the excess biomass--small diameter trees, limbs and debris--for energy will help us get that work accomplished while getting us the added benefit of green energy. These byproducts are often a critical energy source for rural Americans, who use them in environmentally-friendly wood pellet stoves. But more importantly, they are part of the future of clean, renewable fuels--as further development of cellulosic ethanol will allow us to use these waste materials reclaimed literally from the forest and mill floors. Conversely, by excluding biomass from Federal lands, the existing mandate places ever more weight on the use of biomass from other sources, including the use of food-based corn and grains and private forests.

My bill seeks to utilize biomass from Federal lands in an environmentally responsible way. It will protect those natural resources that need to be protected, while allowing renewable biomass from Federal lands to contribute to our Nation's energy mix. First, my bill would allow biomass from National Forests and Bureau of Land Management forests to qualify as renewable biomass under the Federal Renewable Fuels Standard, but it would continue to exclude old growth and biomass from National Parks, Wilderness Areas and other environmentally protected areas. Second, the bill would require Federal land managers to ensure that the quantities of biomass harvested even from these eligible National Forest and BLM lands are sustainable. While biomass holds great potential as a clean source of energy, I want to ensure that it gets harvested at levels that are truly sustainable and that biofuels and bioenergy projects dependent on renewable biomass are sized appropriately so that we protect our forests and natural resources and ensure that biofuels production facilities will not wither and die because of inadequate feedstock supplies.

I want to be clear that my legislation only addresses the question of how the Renewable Fuel Standard treats biomass from Federal lands. It does not and it is not intended to reopen or overhaul the Renewable Fuels Standard as a whole. It is simply a targeted fix for our Federal public lands.

As we move forward with new energy legislation and work on developing additional green energy solutions, I want to ensure that renewable biomass is genuinely one of those solutions, including biomass from Federal lands. It is my hope that beyond fixing the definition in the Clean Air Act for the Renewable Fuels Standard, Congress will include a comparable definition in legislation addressing climate change and renewable electricity production requirements.

I look forward to working with my colleagues here in the Senate and in the House of Representatives to advance a biomass definition that balances sound energy policy with practical and sensible use of our forests.

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

Madam President, I thank the distinguished chairman of the committee for the chance to speak at this time. I am going to talk a bit about the cause of health care reform, and I know the chairman has been a leader in this area lo these many years.

For some time, the planets have started to align for the cause of health reform, and today the President put in place some stars in Kathleen Sebelius and Nancy-Ann DeParle for key assignments in this health reform effort. Both of them bring extraordinary qualifications to their positions.

Kathleen Sebelius is a renowned expert on the cause of insurance reform. This is going to be especially important because the insurance model today is fundamentally flawed. It is all about cherry-picking-- taking healthy people and sending sick people over to government programs more fragile than they are. Under Kathleen Sebelius, I am of the view we will reinvent that insurance system. Private insurers will compete on the basis of price, benefit, and quality.

I believe we will have bipartisan support for that effort. The President has talked about it. Chairman Baucus has it in his white paper. Chairman Kennedy has long advocated this very different model of private insurance. I am pleased to say in our bipartisan Healthy Americans Act, which Senator Bennett and I have sponsored, we include it as well. With Kathleen Sebelius and her expertise in the insurance field, we will be in a position to get it done and get it done with bipartisan support.

Nancy-Ann DeParle brings the same qualifications to the task of fixing health care. She is an expert in health care numbers. She was involved what was then the Health Care Finance Administration. But what I like the most about Nancy-Ann DeParle is that she has always understood that enduring solutions to big questions--such as fixing health care--are going to require that we bring together bipartisan support for those efforts.

To his credit, the President has emphasized how important it is to have bipartisan support for this challenge. I believe at this point Democrats and Republicans can come together and end the gridlock over health care reform. I think we are now seeing emerge a bipartisan consensus that each party has been right on fundamentals with respect to health care.

Democrats have been right about the proposition that you cannot fix the system without covering everybody. If you don't cover everybody, the people who are uninsured shift their bills to the insured, and they shift the most expensive bills. So my view is my party has been right on the question of coverage, and it is time to get all Americans good quality, affordable health care.

I also believe Republicans have contributed significantly because we do need a strong private sector, one that encourages innovation, one that steers clear of price controls and a one-size-fits-all Federal solution. So I think there is opportunity now for private sector choices as well as expanding coverage. Again, President Obama has included that kind of thinking, Chairman Baucus has, Chairman Kennedy has, and we have it in the Healthy Americans Act as well.

Some are saying--and we have heard this repeatedly in recent weeks-- that our country, with our fragile economy, can't afford health care reform. I am of the view that our economy can't afford the status quo. If you think about what is going on in North Carolina, the reason people's take-home pay doesn't go up is because it is all going to health care. The fact is that fixing the economy and fixing health care are two sides of the same coin. The Obama administration--particularly Peter Orszag, the Budget Director--has long recognized this.

The President was right to say that after 60 years of talking about health care, he didn't want to wait until year 61 to get something done; he wanted to do it this year. Today, by appointing Kathleen Sebelius and Nancy-Ann DeParle, he got these efforts off to a very strong start.

This Thursday we will have a health care summit. Proponents, opponents, and those of differing views will be around the table. Again, the President has made the right call by inviting some who haven't been advocates for health care reform in the past. But I think we are seeing a dramatic departure from a lot of the positions of the past, and that is what is going to make Thursday's session very exciting and I believe very productive.

For example, in 1993 and 1994, when our country debated health care reform under the Clinton plan, the business community said, We can't afford to fix health care. Now the business community--businesses small and large and of all philosophies--are saying, We can't afford the status quo. Chairman Baucus and Chairman Kennedy and their ranking minority members, Chuck Grassley and Mike Enzi, have a long record of being able to work in a bipartisan fashion to build on those new sentiments coming from the business community.

I believe Senator Bennett and I, with the 13 Senators who are part of the Healthy Americans Act coalition, can bring to the President, can bring to our chairs and ranking minority members, some ideas that can pick up bipartisan support. They know we are anxious to work with them and to work with them quickly. To stick to the President's timetable is going to require that kind of bipartisan goodwill, and I believe it is now there.

I believe that the health care challenge in this country, with exploding costs and demographics that are relentless, requires a lot of the old thinking be set aside. I believe it is doable. In the course of the last 2 years, I have had a chance to visit more than 80 of our colleagues in their offices, to listen to them, to get their thoughts on what needs to be done in health care, and to a person, I found a desire to act and to act now.

I think, as the President knows, you can't have a town meeting-- whether it is North Carolina or Oregon, or anywhere else in this country--without health care dominating the discussion. So this Thursday provides an opportunity to bring people together. We will have the nominations of Kathleen Sebelius and Nancy-Ann DeParle going forward. I am certain they are going to be approved with very substantial bipartisan support, and then we will be down to the task of writing legislation.

On the key issues there is agreement among reformers. Clearly, you have to cover everybody to stop cost shifting. You have to change the insurance model so that instead of spending time scouring out the bad risks and taking only healthy people, there is a different model of private insurance where plans compete on the basis of price, benefit and quality. We are going to come together and make sure we are purchasing value for our health care dollar.

Dr. Orszag has pointed out on many occasions that something like 30 percent of the health care dollar goes for services of little or no value. That is these services don't help patients get healthier. Chairman Baucus and Chairman Kennedy have some good ideas for changing that as well.

I think, finally, there will be a very sharp new focus on prevention and wellness. When Senator Bennett and I were talking about the Healthy Americans Act, we thought there were a number of key areas we felt strongly about. But what we felt most strongly about was getting a new emphasis on prevention and wellness. That is why we called it the Healthy Americans Act--because to a great extent, Madam President, we don't have health care at all in this country. We have sick care.

Medicare Part A, the biggest health care program in our country, will pay thousands of dollars for senior citizens' hospital bills, and Medicare Part B, on the other hand, will not do anything to award prevention and to keep people healthy. So in the Healthy Americans Act we say seniors who make efforts to lower their blood pressure or lower their cholesterol will get lower Part B premiums.

The fact is, the entire health system does little to encourage prevention. For example, with the typical workers changing their jobs every few years--right now the workers, by the time they are 40, change their jobs 11 times--there is not a great incentive for private insurers to invest in prevention. So what the President seeks to do-- and Chairman Baucus, Chairman Kennedy, Senator Bennett, myself, distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee who is part of our legislation--we are saying let's make health coverage portable so you can take it from place to place as you change your job, and in the future private insurance companies will have an incentive to invest in wellness and prevention and good health care because people will be staying with them. In today's system, when workers jump from one job to another every year or year and a half there is no incentive for the insurance company to invest in your health.

Madam President, I said the planet was aligning for the cause of health reform. With the appointment of two true stars, Kathleen Sebelius and Nancy-Ann DeParle, the President took another significant step toward achieving our goal today. I believe, after 60 years of bickering about this subject--it literally goes back to the 81st Congress with Harry Truman--there is new momentum for an enduring fix for the challenges of American health care. To make an enduring solution to those challenges requires that Democrats and Republicans come together. I think that is going to be possible with both parties having the ability to secure major objectives they have worked for in the past.

With Thursday's summit coming up, I think the American people will see that now the hard work is going to go forward. This time, after years and years of polarizing debates, there is going to be an opportunity to come together. I believe the Congress, with the leadership of President Obama, is going to take that opportunity.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to reintroduce the Withdraw Energy Addicting New Subsidies Act. I first introduced this legislation in the 109th Congress to repeal what I believed to be a back-door subsidy to the oil and gas industry at a time when the oil and gas industry didn't need any more subsidies. This hidden subsidy was included in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. And what it does is to directly transfer $50 million dollars a year of oil and gas royalties, which would otherwise go the Federal Treasury, into a special program to research on advanced, ultra-deep drilling technology for the oil and gas industry. This transfer isn't a one-time transfer, it's an annual transfer that continues every year through the year 2017, at a cost of $250 million over five years.

There are plenty of industries in this country that are hurting, but the oil and gas industry is not one of them. It's time, as President Obama has said, to end Federal programs that we don't really need. And this is one of them. I applaud the decision by the President to propose the repeal of the ultra-deepwater drilling program in the budget he announced today. It's a decision that's long overdue. That's why I am reintroducing this bill--the WEANS Act. I urge my colleagues in joining me in ending this unneeded subsidy by supporting the WEANS Act.

I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to reintroduce the Withdraw Energy Addicting New Subsidies Act. I first introduced this legislation in the 109th Congress to repeal what I believed to be a back-door subsidy to the oil and gas industry at a time when the oil and gas industry didn't need any more subsidies. This hidden subsidy was included in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. And what it does is to directly transfer $50 million dollars a year of oil and gas royalties, which would otherwise go the Federal Treasury, into a special program to research on advanced, ultra-deep drilling technology for the oil and gas industry. This transfer isn't a one-time transfer, it's an annual transfer that continues every year through the year 2017, at a cost of $250 million over five years.

There are plenty of industries in this country that are hurting, but the oil and gas industry is not one of them. It's time, as President Obama has said, to end Federal programs that we don't really need. And this is one of them. I applaud the decision by the President to propose the repeal of the ultra-deepwater drilling program in the budget he announced today. It's a decision that's long overdue. That's why I am reintroducing this bill--the WEANS Act. I urge my colleagues in joining me in ending this unneeded subsidy by supporting the WEANS Act.

I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Madam President, in the course of debating the economic stimulus legislation, every Senator I have talked to has been interested in trying to find savings to keep down the cost of the economic stimulus bill. I have come to the floor this afternoon because it appears that when the Senate debates the final stimulus legislation, it is not going to include a bipartisan provision to protect taxpayers, a bipartisan provision which would require that Wall Street companies that recently paid excessive bonuses be required to pay those bonuses back to the taxpayers.

Taxpayers in this country were horrified several weeks ago to learn about the fact that recently Wall Street companies that had received TARP financing--TARP, of course, being the Troubled Asset Relief Program--had just paid $18 billion in bonuses. Once that news became public, everybody in Government spoke out against the bonuses. Everybody lined up in front of the television cameras to say the bonuses were wrong. Everybody said that it was outrageous and unacceptable for these Wall Street bonuses to have been paid when these institutions were receiving billions and billions of dollars of taxpayer money.

After the news, three of us on the Senate Finance Committee--a bipartisan group--said we were going to do more than say the bonuses were wrong; we were going to take steps to make sure the bonuses were actually paid back. So we came together and put forward a bipartisan proposal. We collaborated with law professors across the country and had the Joint Committee on Taxation, under the able leadership of Edward Kleinbard, review the financial underpinnings of the proposal, and they found that our modest approach that would allow taxpayers to be paid back the excessive amount of the cash bonuses would generate $3.2 billion for American taxpayers--just a fraction of what had been paid out. We felt it was a modest proposal. We felt it was a bipartisan proposal.

The fact is, nobody would oppose our idea in broad daylight, but it now seems that when the ink is dry on the final legislation, the taxpayers of this country are still going to get soaked. It is not right. It is not right because taxpayers in this country have been taking a beating with their health care costs and their fuel costs and trying to figure out how to stay in their homes.

Companies normally pay bonuses when they are doing well. That wasn't the case with these Wall Street financial firms. Here is the math. The Wall Street firms took $274 billion in taxpayer money. When they weren't doing well, they paid $18 billion in bonuses, but they couldn't pay the taxpayers $3.2 billion of the amount paid--the excessive amount paid--in cash bonuses when the taxpayers are being hit in

their wallets, as we all have seen every time we are home and talking to our constituents.

The arguments of the financial firms don't add up to me, and they aren't going to add up to the millions of taxpayers whose money has gone to the financial firms. The taxpayers deserve to see in this stimulus legislation that somebody was actually standing up for them; that it wasn't just about speeches; it wasn't just about saying something was wrong; it was about backing up those words and taking concrete action to protect taxpayers.

So I have come to the floor more than anything else to make it clear that I am a persistent guy, and I am going to stay at this until there is a better accounting for our taxpayers' money, until Congress puts a stop to these kinds of actions where financial firms take taxpayers' money and give the citizens of this country a runaround. This needs to end, and it needs to end now. It means concrete action has to be taken. That means more than speeches.

We know in the days ahead these financial firms are likely to come back to the Congress of the United States and say they need additional sums of money to deal with the toxic loans that are on their books. How can one have confidence about giving these firms additional money when they have just paid bonuses during these tough times and they have fought--I know for a fact--against a reasonable provision to require that these bonuses be paid back.

I intend to stay at this. It concerns me greatly that we didn't have a recorded vote here on the floor of the Senate on this provision. I knew that nobody would oppose this in broad daylight, but I had no idea there would be such an aggressive effort behind the scenes to kill a modest step to protect taxpayers, and particularly to find savings in this legislation. For days now, Senators of both political parties have been talking about ways to hold down the costs. A bipartisan group of Senators found a way--a reasonable way--to save more than $3 billion, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation.

It is time to put a stop to financial firms taking taxpayers' money and using the money to pay bonuses to many of the same people responsible for the current financial crisis. I am old enough to know that normally you pay bonuses when you do well. That is what the American economy is all about. That is what capitalism is all about. Somehow, some of these institutions think they ought to be able to privatize their gains and socialize their losses. That is not right, and it wasn't right to kill this modest provision to force the repayment of the excessive amount of these Wall Street bonuses.

So I intend to come back to the floor of the Senate on this subject. I will do everything I can to get a fair shake for the taxpayers of Oregon and the taxpayers of this country. I wish this bonus recovery provision was in the stimulus legislation that will be voted on here in the Senate. I regret greatly that it is not. I am going to stay with this until the taxpayers recover this money that shouldn't have been paid out in the first place.

I yield the floor.