extension. the banking committee, as well as the finance committee. now, the finance committee has already made sure they can find about $27 billion and they have acted on that. so first thing i want to say is, nobody should worry about this. this senate is acting and we have acted responsibly to extend the fund for 18 months while we write a transformational bill. now, i think the senator knows a lot of what he says has merit. i would certainly say at the end of the 18-month period after which the stimulus program was supposed to act, if there are funds that are left over, i think it makes eminent sense to put them into the trust fund but to take them out at this time when we are in a deep recession, and my friend says what better

way than to put it in the highway trust fund we have billions going to highways yet to be spent and the fact is there could be money taken out of that. so the fact is, i'm going to object to this. the senate's doing its work. we voted for the 18-month extension. the finance committee has come up with $27 billion so the trough trough ithe trustfund is. we always have a chance to look back and see if there are left over dollars but why would we want to take money out of this economy right now when we still have the job rate going up? when we found the money, senator baucus did, as an intergovernmental transfer of funds. therefore, i'm going to object to this. the presiding officer: the objection is heard. have it will the senator yield before she gives up the floor? mrs. boxer: sure. mr. vitter: i would simply ask the senator through the chair to consider the fact that if we don't take up this matter,

however you want to fund it, however you want to consider it, if we don't take up this matter now, this week, then the argument will be made next week that we have to accede to whatever the house has done and we can't do anything differently. that includes a much shorter extension. i support the idea of an extension for 18 months as does the distinguished chair of the authorizing committee. but the house is going to pass, and is passing now, a much shorter extension. so would the senator not agree that it's a good idea to take up the senator matter now, immediately following the energy and water bill and not have the terms of our action dictated to us next week simply because the house is out of session. mrs. boxer: i would respond to senator vitter in this way: i do agree that we should take the highway bill up now. with the fix as proposed by

senator baucus. i think it is totally responsible. and we have hotlined this reauthorization. if we can get some cooperation on both sides of the aisle not to load up that measure with extraneous amendments and we can reach a time agreement, senator reid has told me to come to him so we have, in fact, sent out a hotline on both sides. i would be very happy to work with senator vitter to see if we can clear the way toward a time agreement because, as he knows, these appropriations bills are very important. and the first people to object that we're not done our appropriations bills are some of my friends on the other side. so if we're going to take time out and do the highway bill reauthorization, and i hope it would be 18 months, believe me, i want to do it as much as anyone around here, if not more, given i'm the chairman of the committee responsible for ensuring that the fund is viable. then i hope the senator would

help me and i guess i would ask him through the chair if he would be willing to work with me to get a clean bill forward and a time agreement so that we can get moving on this because i do agree with him, it's a great idea to do it. have it i very much agree with that plan forward and in that spirit, in that cooperative spirit, i would amend my unanimous consent request and i would ask unanimous consent immediately following consideration of the energy and water appropriations bill the democratic proposal that the senator is referring to that has been hotlined, be made in order on the floor; and a time certain to consider that bill and allow for relevant amendments including a vitter amendment would be made in order. mrs. boxer: well. the presiding officer:

the presiding officer: is there objection? mrs. boxer: i would reserve the right to object. first i ask to get something done without amendment and now my friend says, well, we have to have the vitter amendment. what about the boxer amendment and the landrieu amendment and everyone else's amendment -- so, maybe my friend misunderstood me. i'm saying i want to go to a clean 18-month extension. the way it passed out of all the committees. get this done and have a time agreement on both sides. what my friend is proposing is that we allow amendments and we don't have the agreement. so i'm going to object to this in the hopes that we and work it out between us and the leaders a time agreement, hopefully with no amendments; if we have to have one or two, time agreements on those with side-by-sides, and then i think senator reid is very open to this. if we are going to have 30 senators here filibustering, that will not help the highway trust fund.

so i think what we need to do, senator vitter, is work together, to get a bipartisan agreement where we can get a time agreement, a couple of narrow amendments if we have to, and then have a vote. so i would object and i would not object if we can come back with a time agreement but i would object at this time. the presiding officer: the objection heard. mr. vitter: again, mr. president, i renew that plea that we work on that sort of agreement to consider the matter this week immediately following the energy and water appropriations bills. yes, i absolutely want a vitter amendment considered because that's the whole issue i've been pushing to fund this out of the stimulus not to run up debt. but i believe we can is an agreement for a very limited number of germane amendments but it's essential for that discussion to be meaningful that it happen this week is i would renew my encouragement of the chairman to help put together an

agreement for consideration of the bill this week, limited number of amendments, including the consent of funding it out of the stimulus. and i believe that's the way we can act responsibly and not be held hostage and be made to do whatever the house says is the right answer simply because they're leaving town at the end of this week. i look forward to working with the distinguished chair of the authorizing committee toward that end. i yield the floor. mrs. boxer: let me just make it clear that i have been working with the majority leader. he is very anxious to get this done. and if we can get cooperation on both sides of the aisle with a time agreement we can move this very, very quickly. so i think senator vitter makes a point. this is urgent. it's important. i agree with it. that's why we hotlined this and any senators listening, please do not object to letting us go

to this 18-month extension, we have it figured out. we have it paid for. let moves move forward. mr. dorgan: what is the pending business? the presiding officer: amendment 1874, the nelson amendment. mr. dorgan: i make a point of order that pursuant to the lott precedent the amendment is not germane. the presiding officer: pursuant to the precedent of may 17, 2000, the amendment violates rule 16. the point of order is sustained. the amendment falls. mr. dorgan: what is the pending business? the presiding officer: amendment 1865, the corker amendment. as modified. mr. dorgan: i make a point of order that is the amendment is legislation on appropriations. the presiding officer: amendment violates rule 16 and the point of order is sustained.

the amendment falls. mr. dorgan: mr. president, i make a point of order that is quorum is not present. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire.

mrs. shaheen: i ask unanimous consent the call of the quorum be dispensed. .the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mrs. shaheen: mr. president, i ask to speak up to ten minutes as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mrs. shaheen: thank you, mr. president. time and time again we've heard that our health care system is not working. costs are too high. outcomes are too poor. and access is too limited. i agree with so many of my colleagues who have spoken out over the last several weeks that the status quo is not sustainable. we manufacture take action. we must all work together to ensure that every american has access to quality and affordable health care. mr. president, everyone deserves stable health care coverage that they can count on. regardless of the job they hold or the curve balls that life may throw. all americans should be able to count on insurance premiums and deductibles that won't continue

to rise and eat away more and more of their paychecks. and all americans deserve stable health care that lets them keep their doctor and their health care plan. especially if they trust their doctor and their plan and they have build a relationship with both. now, let me be clear, health care costs are too high. every day in hum numb an in new, families are struggling. the crushing costs of health care threatens their financial stability, threatens leaving them exposed to higher premiums and deductibles and putting them at risk for a possible loss of health insurance coverage and, too often, we're seeing today, even bankruptcy. studies have shown that medical problems contribute to over 40% of the personal bankruptcies in the united states today.

unfortunately, too many of us are just one heart attack away from potential personal financial disaster due to the high costs of health care and inadequate coverage. in 2007 our nation spent $2.2 trillion or 16.2% of the gross domestic product on health care, twice the average of other developed nations. as a country, the quality of care we receive is no better. we still lag behind other countries when it comes to efficiency, access, patient safety, and adoption of information technology. now, mr. president, i have one proposal that i think will help with our current health care situation and along with senator susan collins, we've introduced a partner barn piec bipartisan n

called the medicare transitional care act of 2009 addressing our health care crisis. the medicare transitional care act would improve quality of care while saving money. this bill aims to reduce costly hospital readmissions and improve the care patients receiver while cutting medicare costs. the legislation will help keep seniors who are discharged from the hospital from having to go back. simply put, it provides trance unconscious planning for seniors on medicare who are leaving the hospital and in doing so it will improve the health care we offer our seniors while saving must be, saving that the experts expect to be $5,000 per medicare beneficiary. according to a report from the new england journal of medicine, almost one-third of medicare beneficiaries discharged from the hospital were rehospitalized

within 90 days. one half of the individuals rehospitalized had not visited a physician since their discharge indicating a real lack of follow-up care. a study also estimated that in 2004 medicare spent $17.4 billion on these unplanned hospital -- rehospitalizations. this problem is costly for our government and troublesome for our seniors. but the good news is that it's avoidable. research shows that the transition from the hospital to the patient's next place of care -- whether that's home or a nursing fault or a rehabilitation center -- can be complicated and risky. this is especially true for older individuals with multiple, chronic illnesses. these patients talk about difficulty in remembering instructions for medication,

confusion over the correct use of medications, and general uncertainty about their own conditions. seniors need support and assistance to manage their health during the vulnerable time after discharge from a hospital. to ensure that they're not rehospitalized. this legislation provides that support. this is the type of commonsense legislation that needs to be included in our health reform. it saves money and it improves quality. now, i'm proud in new hampshire that we have two exciting health reform initiatives under way to address health care costs and improve quality. we have a medical home pilot project with close to 40,000 patients across the state. the medical home is changing the way health care is delivered and the way we think about health care making it much more patient

centered. it's encouraging doctors to collaborate with other providers to create health care plans for each patient. they also utilize electronic medical records to reduce errors, improve quality and contain costs. it is a new way of practices medicine, and it is one that will deliver better care for less money. new hampshire's also the home for the dartmouth institute for health policy, which is the leader in comparative effectiveness research. it helps empower patients to make vital health care decisions. the research provided by the dartmouth atlas project has provided critical analysis about the differences and amounts of money we spend on health care in different regions of country. the research also show that she's differences in spending have no impact on health outcomes. i want to repeat that. because i think this goes to the

crux of one of the problems we're having with our health care system. what the research at dartmouth atlas project and other places around the country has shown is that differences in spending have no impact on healthout comes -- on health outcomes. it is amazing to me that regions that spend more money on health care don't necessarily produce better health care results. we must address this inadequacy as we turn to health care reform and we must empower patientsor make them equal partners in their health care. research supports this. in fact, it shows up to -- that up to 40% of the time patients who participate in decisions related to their care will choose procedures that are less invasive and less costly. these choices produce better

outcomes with higher rates of satisfaction. we must remember to keep patients at the center of this debate on health care reform. finally, mr. president, people are struggling because of the high costs of health insurance. it is a burden to families in new hampshire and across the country. in my state there are nearly 150,000 people who have no health insurance. even more who are underinsured with policies that don't provide the coverage they need. and for those who do have insurance, the costs are very high. oveover the past nine years, premiums for employer-sponsored health insurance have more than doubled. a growth rate that is four times faster than cumulative wage increases. this has created a huge burden on middle-class families. in my state of new hampshire from 2002 to 2006, there was a

41.6% increase in the premiums businesses paid for an individual plan for their workers. for our smallest businesses, those with fewer than 10 employees, the increase was almost double that. a 70.6% increase. that's staggering. and that disturbing increase in premiums cost what one would expect. many small businesses dropped their coverage. that's just unacceptable. health care costs and insurance costs must be contained. chuck engbor from ashland, new hampshire, talked about the high cost of insurance and the instability of health insurance at a recent roundtable that i held in new hampshire. chuck was diagnosed with type two diabetes, he suffered a smiled stroke, heart attack and

had five bypass surgeries. he he also because of diabetes has to walk on crutches for three years. despite all of that, chuck has lived to tell his tale, but the turning point for him came two years ago when his wife, kathy, was laid off from her job. they had to purchase cobra health insurance and found that the cost of cobra plus high copays amounted to more than 50% of their annual income. in the mean time kathy suffered a heart attack on her own which resulted in her own bypass surgery. they're one of the lucky ones because kathy found new employment and they have health insurance through their job. but that comes with a very high annual deductible. i heard a similar situation from a woman named laura m mcknit who

struggles with high insurance costs. while she hasn't had surgery in 16 years, the insurance companies are able to target here and charge her outrageous rates under a preexisting loophole. laura was born with a cyst on her brain. fortunately it was recognize bid her doctors a few weeks after she was born. at one month old, she underwent surgery, a shunt was inserted into the brain to leave the pressure. she is an active woman in her late 20's and works hard to maintain a healthy lifestyle. she has not been rewarded for it. she has been denied from every insurance company in new hampshire unless she accepts the high premium, high deductible plans. we need to enact health care reform to help people like chuck and laura. we need to ensure that every american has access to

affordable, quality health care that they can count on when they need it. this is a basic principle on which many business groups, labor organizations, and medical professionals now agree. we must take steps as a nation to reduce the costs of health care while improving the quality of care that americans receive. health care reform is economic reform. and i believe that for our economy to truly recover and prosper, we must help middle-class families, businesses, federal, state, and local governments cope with the skyrocketing health care costs. the status quo is not working and it is clearly not sustainable. mr. president, we need to act and we need to act soon. i look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to enact health reform that addresses the health care costs crisis and ensures quality, affordable health care

for everyone in new hampshire and across this country. thank you and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania.

mr. casey: mr. president, i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. casey: mr. president, i rise today to join my colleagues in addressing one of the biggest issues facing our economy in our country and that's the threat posed by the global warming. this challenge presents us with an opportunity as well. it's the opportunity to revitalize our economy while simultaneously changing our national energy policy to reduce our competence on foreign oil and to increase -- increase our energy efficiency and conservation that will save money for the people of pennsylvania as well as people across the united states. there's a long debate ahead, a lot of issues to discuss, but i think it's critically important in these weeks in the summer leading up to the break that congress will take to begin the debate which will, i know, continue into the fall and maybe

beyond that. i do agree with the majority of accredited climb tologist that's global warming is a threat. it is a threat to our economic and national security. it threatens our economic security because the problems that we face become more expensive the longer we do not act. if the past is any indicator of our future, we should be concerned that over the past 28 years, 190 to 200 -- 190 to 2008 the cost of the largest weather events that happened during that time period was $700 billion. $700 billion attributable to those weather events. if we to nothing in the worst -- and the worst case scenarios become a reality, mitigating the change in our climate will be expensive and difficult. global warming threatens our national security by setting off

a chain of events that could lead to decreased world food production, relocation of large numbers of people, increased extreme -- an increase in extreme weather events and a rise in sea levels. like many americans, i came to understand this challenge in a way that was very -- very poignant. i remember reading a "time" magazine story a few years back when it talked about the percent of the earth that has been the subject of drought. that percent of the earth's surface that has been the subject of drought doubled in about 30 years. that's all we need to know. we know what drought means, it means disease, hunger, and darkness and death. that's the threat posed by global warming. the threat is real enough that we're now currently assessing the readiness of our military -- our military to protect us and keep the peace should global warming continue unchecked.

one area of the world where -- we're examining in that analysis to determine the impacts is the region that encompasses pakistan, india, and afghanistan. and the river fed by the him l himalayan glacieriers. the changing global climate is causing that glacier to retreat. once the glacier is done, the river is expected to lose 40% of its water flow. india, afghanistan, and pakistan are already water-stressed countries that rely heavily on that river. i don't think i have to explain to this chamber or anybody else to remind us of the national security implications of that threat both with regard to -- especially, i should say, with regard to afghanistan and pakistan. what a permanent drought would mean for countries is those

countries not having enough drinking water, not able to grow food in those countries as a result of that threat. i understand this may seem a long way off to the people in pennsylvania or in other states around the country who at this time and at a time of economic stress are leading lives of struggle and sacrifice and real hardship. they're struggling to keep their jobs, paying their mortgage, putting their kids through college, or paying for this week's groceries. but what we do on climate change does affect their lives directly. not indirectly, directly. so i want to talk this morning about the economy and jobs as it relates to this issue. we all know that things are tough for so many people right now in our country. we're suffering through the worst recession since the great depression. but i think it's time that instead of talking about how we

got here on a day like today, one of the things that we have to do is focus on the future. one of the solutions -- one of the solutions is transforming the way we produce an use energy -- and use energy, which saves bill payers money and creates new jobs along the way. the good news is that these jobs are not the same hazy concept as -- as it relates to future. we're creating clean energy jobs right now in pennsylvania. just give you one example among many we could cite, aztec solar power in pennsylvania, they have certified electricians, installers and energy consultants to for residential and commercial buildings. not only are there clean energy jobs now, they plan to expand their business. the company is constructing a $10 million manufacturing fit

in york, pennsylvania, and creates over 100 new jobs. i believe we in this country are at a crossroads. one direction we could take and some people here in washington want to take this direction is business as usual, keep losing jobs, keep losing our competitive edge to countries like china, which is out investing us and out innovating us when it comes to new energy technologies and the jobs that come from them. but i believe we can take a different direction. we should move down a different path, a path where america will reclaim its competitive edge, bring manufacturing jobs back home to pennsylvania and states across the country, give us the opportunity to manufacture new technologies for exporting those technologies to other countries, and create a new economic engine that will put people back to work. this is a strategy for economic renewal, creating a new energy policy with a focus on building

clean energy jobs and innovative energy technologies will take time. indeed, it will take time, but it will also take leadership. it will take the dedication, the know-how, the ingenuity, and the innovative skills of the american worker. a lot of those workers are in pennsylvania. so the choice before us is clear. we can stay on the road that we've been on, which we know leads to not just more drought and darkness and death, also leads to job loss in the end because our economy won't have the dynamism to compete with places like china, or we can take a different path, the path of change, the path of reform, the path of not doing business as usual. i think it's time that we create policies that will rebuild our economy and create permanent new energy technology jobs in

pennsylvania and in states across the country. we know thousand do this. we've -- we know how to do this. we've done it before for our entire history in our state as well as states across the country. we have to do it again. madam president, i would yield the floor. i would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. mr. kaufman: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. kaufman: i ask consent the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kaufman: madam president, i ask to speak as if in morning

business for up to ten minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kaufman: madam president, i rise once more to recognize our great federal employees. many americans can recall from memory the acronyms of several federal law enforcement agencies: f.b.i., d.e.a., a.t.f., and t.s.a., just to make it a few. these are more than just acronyms. these agencies are composed of thousands of hard-working men and women who risk their lives to ensure our safety. today, i will share the story of one such law enforcement agent from my home state of delaware. when speaking about a delawarean who spent a career risking his life in the service of others, i cannot help but think of the generation of delawareans who fought for independence. they in particular are part of a tradition of public service and courageous sacrifice that has

always characterized the people of the first state. i'm reminded of caesar rodney, when on the 1st of july, 1776, rode his horse 80 miles through a thunderstorm from dover to philadelphia to cast the decisive vote in favor of independence. i can only imagine the look on the faces of the other delegates when ronnie burst independence hall, soaking wet in his riding boots, eager to do his part for liberty. rodney had already risked his life for the cause of american independence. a month before his famous night ride to philadelphia, he joined with fellow patriot thomas mccain in the old courthouse in new castle. there, before the delaware colonial assembly, the two made the case for separation from great britain. the unanimous resolution by the delaware assembly in favor of separation was the first of its kind. by this brave act, its members became traitors to the crown,

punishable by death. this went a long way in encouraging the delegates to the continental congress to vote for independence. delaware has a long legacy as a pioneer among states. we are recognized as the first state because, as many americans know, delaware was the first to ratify the constitution, just as we took the first steps towards independence. we led the way in accepting the ideas about government that were radical in 1787 but which are recognized today as fundamental to preserving our liberty. madam president, so many delawareans continue in this tradition of service today. one of them is dave devetta of wilmington, who has been a special agent for the bureau of alcohol, tobacco and firearms and explosives for over 20 years. prior to his service in the a.t.f., dave served as a military policeman in the u.s. army, stationed in fort miles in lewis, delaware. he also worked as a customs inspector at j.f.k. airport in

new york. in 1988, dave joined the a.t.f. as a special agent in new york. two years later, he was transferred to the houston division's special response te team, which focuses on high-risk missions. while serving as an agent in new york and texas, dave participated in over 350 high-risk operations and he was decorated with the a.t.f.'s distinguished service medal in 1993. in 1996, dave began working at a.t.f. headquarters helping to lead large-scale investigations and managing the bureau's photography program with a $57 million budget. he also taught undercover investigation techniques to the federal law enforcement training center. dave returned to delaware in 1999, where he continues to work in the delaware office, overseeing tobacco and firearm investigations. dave is assisting in providing security for the 1996 republican

convention, the 2000 democratic convention, as well as the 1996 and 2004 olympic games. in the days following the september 11 attack, dave was assigned to special duties as an air marshall for six months, helping to restore public confidence in air travel and serving on the frontline against terror. as part of his duties in wilmington, dave represents the a.t.f. at the dover downs raceway. he has trained his staff how to expief prevent -- identify and prevent improvised explosive devices, ensuring the safety of spectators. over the course of his two-decade career, dave's been awarded eight special service awards, the a.t.f. director's award, and several letters of commendation. he currently represents the a.t.f. in the leadership of the federal law enforcement officers association and he helped restart the association's delaware chapter. when asked about why he decided to work in public service, dave

pointed to a value of volunteerism he learned as an eagle scout. he also said that he wanted a life characterized by a sense of adventure. dave said -- and i quote -- "i've never had twoays in my career that were the same. i've traveled to just about every state, been overseas to four countries. i've seen the good and the bad. but one thing i can never say -- that it was boring." dave and his wife are active in the wilmington community, volunteering their time for community service projects with the st. anthony's church and a number of charitable organizations. i had the privilege of meeting dave last month at the st. anthony's italian festival in wilmington and i'm so pleased that he and his family could be here today at the capitol. dave devetta's story is one of so many in delaware and across the country. his willingness to risk his own safety to serve the common good recalls the heroism of our revolutionary forebearers, like caesar rodney, thomas mccain,

and other delawareans who were the first to vote for separation and have fought for freedom. i hope my colleagues will join me in honoring the contribution made by dave and other federal law enforcement agents who daily risk their lives to keep our citizens safe. they all deserve our gratitude. madam president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. dodd: madam president, before he departs from the flo floor, i want to commend our colleague from delaware, our new colleague from delaware, senator kaufman. senator kaufman is -- was appointed to fill the seat of our -- my great friend and colleague and seatmate for many, many years, joe biden, and while he's only been here about six months as a new member of the united states senate, what a wonderful contribution you make.

i've watched over the last number of weeks your focus and attention on people who work for our country every single day but who probably will never get much credit for showing up every day and doing a wonderful job on behalf of the american people. and whether they be civil servants, or police officers or others, the military, and the fact that you've taken as much time almost on a daily basis, i'd say to my colleagues and others who will be watching these proceedings, senator ted kaufman of delaware has made it his business on a daily basis to express our collective gratitude to these people who serve our country every single day to keep us safe and secure and to keep us functioning as a society. and it may not seem like much to me, but i'll guarantee you, there are thousands of people today who are at work who appreciate it and there are millions more, i suspect, whose family members, whose neighbors, whose coworkers and others appreciate the recognition you've given them, as well as some ideas you've brought to the

table legislatively to make a difference for people. so i commend you, my fellow colleague, for a relative newcomer and a short-timer, you've made a substantial contribution to our country. and i thank you for it. mr. kaufman: madam president, i'd just like to say that this has been a labor of love for me talking about great federal employees, and i -- i must admit that one of the truly great federal employees who embodies everything that i talk about, about the other federal employees in terms of dedication, in terms of sacrifice, in terms of commitment, in terms of intellect, in terms of participation, is the senator from connecticut. and i have admired him for many, many years and watched how he has done us all proud and makes every federal employee proud of the fact that he they're federal employees and demonstrates how really important our federal employees are. so i thank the senator of connecticut for his kind remarks, and i thank the senator from connecticut for his long and hondura honorable service. mr. dodd: i thank the senator. i did not intend to turn this into a -- a recipient comment but i thank him immeantly.

if he wanted to talk a little longer, that's fine. [laughter] but i appreciate it very, very much, i say to my friend, as well. madam president, i ask consent as well that rachel holt, an intern in my office, be granted floor privileges for today's session. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. dodd: i thank you for that. madam president, i want to spend a few minutes and i want to speak in morning business if i may, ask consent to do so. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. dodd: i've been on the floor every day speaking about health care, for a few minutes, any anyway -- i know there are other matters of business before this body -- and as my colleague from north carolina knows, because i'm privileged to work with her on the health, education, labor and pensions committee -- she's a new member and has made a tremendous contribution as well to our efforts. back a few weeks ago when we went through that marathon sessions to try and at least fulfill our obligation on the health care debate and equation under the jurisdiction of our committee to deal with the matters under which -- over which we have gurs dick, things like prevention and the quality of health care, the work force issues, the fraud and --

jurisdiction, things like prevention and the quality of health care, the work force issues and fraud and there are other members the finance committee has to grapple with as w. so i thought it would be whorworthwhile over these last number of days to talk about things in our bill, that i hope will be a part of a combination of efforts when we meet, hopefully in the next few weeks, depending upon the outcome the efforts in the finance committee which we're all waiting with in anticipation and confidence, i might mention as well. i have tremendous confidence in kent conrad and others who will allow to us move move forward. but i thought it might be helpful to talk about various stitch wednesdays in the country as well -- constituencies in the country as well and how does this affect them as well. how does this affect me and my family. i know you're talking about accessibility and talking about quality of health care and talking about the cost of health care, but i'd like to get some idea, people i think are asking on, what -- what are you doing and how does it affect me and my family, where is this all

heading? and while we're only in the first stages of developing what we hope will be a comprehensive proposal on health care reform, it's important that we at least communicate with people where we're coming from, how we look at these issues. so while we've all heard the numbers of 47 million americans that have lost or do not have their health care today, a statistic that i bring up every day because i think it's important to people to point out. we completed our work about three weeks ago, madam preside madam president, on the affordable health choices act. since we completed our work three weeks ago, 196,000 fellow citizens of ours have lost their health insurance. about 14,000 a day lose their health care coverage. i lose about a hundred people a day in connecticut for one reason or another, they lose their jobs or their employers decide to cro drop the coveragel sorts of reasons that can cause someone to lose their health care. and it's about 14,000 people a day. these are people who have health insurance, who are losing it. these are not people who are uninsured. they're just added to the rolls. now, some people today get health insurance as well, get a

job, come off the rolls, and it's important to point out that that happens as well. but it is i think worthwhile to note that every single day that we go forward in this process -- and it is important to be a deliberative process. rushing something through, i'm not in favor us. we need to get this right. it's a terribly complex matter. we've all noted that almost every congress ov the last 70 years, along with every administration, over the years -- 70 years -- have tried to solve this year. and everyone has worked hard at it. some have succeeded in part but there's a reason why this hasn't happened until now: it isn't easy. i commend my colleague force trying. as well as commending the obama administration for insisting upon this issue being of such a high prior to. and why is that the case? it isn't just because it would be nice to get it done. it's because if we don't get something done the status quo is debilitating to put it mildly in macroeconomic terms of what it does to our country, in terms of

consuming such a large part of our gross domestic product could jump to 35%. what does that mean to the average family? that would mean that gross domestic product number which may not mean much to many people -- what does that mean? it means the average family in eight to ten years if we did nothing, let the status quo continue, that about 50% of your gross income would be consumed in paying for health care premiums if you wish to be covered and have your family covered. obviously that is unacceptable and unsustainable. you would end up consuming that much of your gross domestic product and your income each year, families could not survive. so today, i'd like to speak about a group of americans who are being cheated by the country system. and that is the very people who are affected by this number. people who have health coverage but lose it every day because of various economic circumstances and for whom the status quo sun acceptable. these are americans who have

insurance but are underinsured. their numbers are 25 million to 30 million of our fellow citizens and it changes every day as many lose health care coverage. these are 25 million to 30 million people who cannot get the care they need they pay good money for health insurance and they think they will receive at least some guarantee that if things go wrong, someone in their family get as cancer diagnosis, hit by an automobile, or some other injuries, they won't at least have to be concerned about whether or not they can afford to pay for the coverage, pay for the health care. they worry about, obviously, getting better and back on their feet but that is that sense of stability and certainty i have a health care plan. i'm not going to get wiped out. i'm not going to get ruined economically. i have insurance. it may not be great but i'm in pretty good shape. i feel pretty confident that some something tragic happens i'll be okay. that's what insurance is

supposed to mean. life is uncertain. unfortunate things happen to all of us. people get ill, injured, people get hurt, and while you expect to get better you want to make sure you are not wiped out. in our anyway, the wealthiest in the word no one should lose their home or economic security because of an illness or injury, in my view. we write checks to insurance companies every month or see premiums deducted from our paycheck and what do we expect in return? we expect that if something happens we at least won't have to worry about anything but getting better, getting back on our feet again. well, unfortunately, madam president, for tens of millions of our fellow citizens, that isn't how it works at all. people who have insurance but they cannot be sure about anything. the uncertainty of what happens. some find out the hard way that their insurance doesn't cover what they thought it covered. that fine present you kind of glazed over when you signed on to that contract, i know we all wish we read it better, understand it bettors but the

reality is when you finally find some situation and you go to that company and say, well, i think i'm covered and they say, sorry, but if you read this more carefully you would understand that fact situation does not cover you. your preexisting condition which you don't properly let us know about, clueds you from the kind of coverage under these situations. the high deductibles of co-pays, the injury you got can be paid for, taken care of for $5,000 or $10,000. that may not seem like much to some but for a working family that could be a major, major, economic crisis for are you. some suffer from serious illness like cancer, hit with an annual lifetime benefit cap and the sickest americans are cut off entirely. our legislation, by the way, that we adopted, the presiding officer, myself, and the 21 other members of the united states senate, we eliminate

preexisting conditions. so you never again have to be excluded from cover because of that preexisting condition. we don't exclude you because of portability, you have moved around in the past you moved, you could lose coverage. and we don't allow caps to be placed. you find out that while you have a serious illness, we will take care of you for a week, two, or three, or four or five visits, that's it -- we eliminate those concerns that people have worried about. many of our fellow citizens, of course, have children and children have different health care needs than adult. for millions of children who fall under insurance provided by their parents' employer, those needs usually are not covered smvment have coverage taken away -- some have coverage taken away at the hospital they need it most and many watch skyrocketing premiums slowly consuming more and more of the family budget. until they have to choose between letting their kids go uninsured or having them not receive the kind of other

benefits they ought to be receiving as children. we talk about health care reform, we're not talking about a free gift to the american people at all. we're falling about keeping a promise to our fellow citizens, talking about guaranteeing that insurance actually ensures against economic ruin for working families. as it stands today, madam president, millions of our fellow citizens with health insurance are spending their life savings on care. 50.7 million insured americans spend more than half of -- a dies --more than 10% of their ie spent on health care, more than 50% of our fellow citizens. and for 14 million fellow insured americans, it was 25 cents of every $1 of income spent on premiums and as it stands millions are unable to get the care they needs when

they need it. let me share some numbers briefly. numbers can glaze over the eyes of people and people may find themselves in these situations. now, these numbers reflect people with insurance primarily. some here are without insurance but primarily with insurance. today i want to know cuss on the underinsure -- i want to focus on the underinsured, the 37 million who are underinsured or those who have insurance but have high deductibles and expect out-of-pocket expenses: 37% of people who are roughly unsured took home remedies or over-the-counter drugs instead of seeing a doctor going that route, rather than getting the kind of care that would probably reduce hair health car their he. or 31% postponed getting care they needed because of cost. or they skipped a recommended test, 27%. did not get a prescription

filled, around 25%. and close to 20% cut pills in half or skipped doses altogether. obviously, by doing so, they put themself as greater risk of more problems raising the cost of care when they go back in to treat a problem that could have been contained if, in fact, they were taking the medications as prescribed. this gives you some idea of the kinds of choices the people may who are insured. these are the insured, this terms of what they need to provide for themselves. when we talk about health care reform it is very important to talk about people, to the many who believe they are in go shape and are not worried that they will lack coverage if, in fact, a health care crisis confronts them. this constituency of our fellow citizens, with insurance, have much to worry about with the status quo. and, thus, the necessity for reforming a system in areas where it's broken and leaving alone those areas where it works

pretty well. this isn't just people, again, who don't have insurance. these numbers include people, obviously, who have insurance. americans with health insurance are forced interest bankruptcy. we know that, as well. the numbers are not ones that i make up. 62% the bankruptcies in our country the last several years, madam president, occurred because of a health care crisis in that family. that statistics is alarming, the next statistics is more alarming to me: 75% are those with insurance. these are people with insurance, who ended up in bankruptcy because of a health care crisis, the lasts thing you would assume would happen if you have health insurance and you are running into a major health care problem you assume you will not be put into bankruptcy or financial ruin, three out of four people in that 62% number had health insurance and still ended up being bankrupt or put into a bankruptcy situation. 50% of foreclosures, or 10,000

foreclosure notices a day in the country, roughly the names have been static for a long time: 50% of the notices went out to families who are losing their homes because of a health care crisis. i don't know the number of how many of that 50% had insurance or not, i don't is the same statistic as i did for the numbers of bankruptcies. we ought to try and get that number to find out what message of the 50% actually had insurance at the time they got the foreclosure notices. so madam president, americans with health insurance give up the financial foundation they worked a lifetime to build because we haven't taken the action to fix the system that too often deprived you of the coverage you thought you bought when you need it. there are two groups of people within the insured category. everybody in that category has insurance. and as long as you never really have to deal with it, then you

feel pretty secure about it and you should because you think you are covered. if you find yourself dealing with it and you thought you had the coverage, that's when it can drive people to frustration, to put it mildly when they cover that condition was a preexisting condition, there were caps on how much you could get or that, in fact, the very illness you have was never paid for or covered under the insurance policy. and so that's where an awful lot of people discover that despite the sense of security they had the present system is more designed to deprive them of the coverage they need than to help out during those crisis. and that's why this issue is so important. again, it's a complicated issue. there are no clear and simple answers to it. we're not going to resolve all of the problems with even one bill. it will become a perpetual struggle to get this right in the years ahead. we need to economically and as well as from the standpoint of serving the needs of individual people. this debate is not just about the uninsured. we make a huge mistake if we

leave that impression. this is not just the 47 million without insurance. we would like to do something to see on to it that people uninsured get coverage. but it is about the millions who have insurance, the 30 million who are underinsured, and the many, many more, who have insurance but could find themselves without the kind of coverage they anticipate having. each one of us, of course, insured or not, isn't hurt by inaction, rather, is hurt by inaction. premiums are rising faster than rays. one insurance company in my state of connecticut announced they were raising rates 32% premium increase for people under that coverage. imagine that -- 32% increase in premium costs on health care coverage. the a family, madam president, writes a check for $1,100 each year in our country. $1,100 check to cover the uninsured because we in this country take care of people. if you are uninsured in connecticut or north carolina and something tbl happen terrib,

and you show up at the hot, we take care of you. we don't throw you out. we take care of you. and i'm proud i live in a country that does that. but americans need to know that it's not free when people show up without insurance, no ability to pay, for the kind of care they get, in north carolina, connecticut or anywhere else, that bill gets passed on. to whom is it passed on? to the insured who get added costs in premiums to cover. that is a tax you are paying about $1,100 because we have uncompensated care. we try to address that. because we ought to. that's one way to bring down the costs for the insured in our country. there are other ideas as well -- prevention, quality of care, by reducing some of the problems with the five chronic illnesses that consume 75 cents of every dollar in health care are measures we take to move that curve, if you will, downward,

when it comes to affordability. as well as, of course, improve the quality of health to all of our fellow citizens. of course in this body here we all have health insurance. i made that point over and over again. every member of congresses every member of this body. i've never had to go to bed at night wondering whether if something happened to my four or 7-year-old daughters that i would be able to pay for it in the morning with the policies we have. i am glad we have good health insurance but i think it's important as we are here to remember that a lot of the people we represent are not in that same situation. the uncertainty they live with, the lack of stability that knowing that a crisis when it happens -- and it does every single day -- when that happens, they ought not be in that sense of free fall that they could get wiped out or could not possibly take care of it. i will never forget senator kennedy the chair of the committee that i have been asked to help temporarily to step in

and write this legislation, telling a story, over the years within his 11 or 12-year-old son, teddy, contracted a serious form of cancer, one that was very dangerous could take his life. he had to have his leg amputated but there were protocols to determine if they could treat that cancer and they let senator kennedy's son and other families be part of that protocol. it was free of charge because protocols are if you are in that kind of test, they welcome you into it and it does not cost. halfway th -- halfway through that test, it was determined that that treatment actually worked, that it could save senator kennedy's son's life as it could to the other children utilizing that drug. once the protocol was determined to be successful, it was no longer free. it was very, very expensive. thousands and thousands of dollars. senate kennedy, obviously as he tells the story, comes from a family that had the resources to be able to write that check to continue to make sure his son

would get the treatment that allowed teddy to recover, lead a very healthy life. today he lives in my state of connecticut with his wife kiki, and their children and he got that kind of medicine. he tells the story of other families at that time years ago that didn't have the money and begged the hospitals and doctors. could they get a quarter of the treatment? could they get half of it? to see that their child might have the same chance to succeed and recover as senator kennedy's son did. and it was that moment that senator kennedy some 40 years ago -- 35 years ago decided this would be the cause of his life when his child, because they had the resources to get the treatment, could get back on his feet. but some other child, whose economic circumstances could not. in the united states of america, no child, in my view, ought to be deprived the opportunity or that family to get back on his or her feet again. that's what i think joins us here together. this is hard. we realize it.

it's difficult. but i think it demands our attention and time. and so for those who are insured today and while we are feeling pretty secure, and i hope you do, understand that these moments can happen. if you're uninsured, obviously tax frightening -- obviously it's a frightening feeling of what can happen in your family. these are not -- these are difficult questions and there's not easy answers. but i believe we have an obligation, madam president, as united states senators at this moment in our history to rise to that challenge and not to fail as others have in years past because it's too hard much there was a great line that edward r.muro once used when talking about another subject matter he said that one excuse history will never forgive you for is the problem was too difficult. i don't think history will forgive us if the answer was just too hard, we just couldn't figure out how to come together. i think that history will judge us harshly if that is the excuse

we use for not rising to the moment and dealing with the issue. it can never be too difficult. it's hard but we ought to have the ability to help resolve this issue. that is my plea today and i thank the presiding officer and yield the floor and would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: thank you, madam president. first, let me compliment my colleague from connecticut for his great leadership on the issue of health care as the acting head of the "help" committee. he has done a great job on a bill i think has garnered wide support and praise from one end of the country to the other. so i want to salute him for his work and his diligence. now, i rise today to speak in support of the critical resources provided in the energy

and water bill, the bill we're debating, for federal hydrogen and fuel-cell research technology, which will give america's automotive industry a much-needed shot in the arm that it needs to revitalize and compete in the global market for fuel-efficient vehicles. in june i joined a bipartisan coalition of 17 senators and we wrote to protect the funding for this critical technology after hearing that the administration had significantly cut the budget for hydrogen research. i generally agree with the administration on energy policy, but in this area they are wrong. hydrogen research is one of our futures. and, as a result, and i want to thank chairman dorgan for helping here, the fiscal year 2010 appropriations energy and water bill contains 19 - -- $190 million in a much-needed

investment in hydrogen technology and fuel research and development. the $190 million included in the bill for hydrogen technology and fuel cell research i is $37 million more than the house appropriations bill. and, mr. president, it is my hope that some of this money, particularly given the fact that we have added extra money, will go to the general motors honeyway falls new york facility. it has the potential to create 400 clean-energy jobs. the facility is ideally situated to play a leadership role in transforming this technology into reliable and affordable options for all american drivers. the bottom line is the facility at honeyway falls is the only hydrogen fuel-cell facility in

north america. there won't be another facility with its potential or progress. it is only one of four facilities in the world that can go from research to application in fuel-cell development and the only one in america. there's one in germany and two in japan. an if we are going to abandon this vital area of research for sure several years from now it will create real problems for our automobile companies which we hope can get back on their feet. this is the only facility in th u.s. that can go directly from science to vehicle as it did for general motors in project driveway where at honeyway falls, the researchers developed, designed, and engineered the equinox fleet. this is a suburb of rochester where we need jobs and have a great educated workforce and it

will keep us globally competitive with japan and germany which is ahead of us in fuel-cell development, which is something that we can't afford. the research development and engineering are all under one roof and are an american treasure. let me speak a little more generally, not simply about honeyway falls, but about hydrogen research. as the united states forges a leadership goal in development an initiatives, it is critical that we protect the areas where we're leading the competition, and that includes hydrogen and fuel-cell technology. any compromises to our nation's investment in this cutting edge area will hamper our ability to compete with other nations, hamper the ability of companies like general motors and chrysler to come back and be at the

competitive edge. we've come too far to close the door on this important research only to hand over the gains we have made to other nations such as japan and germany. by cutting this kind of research, but not funding honeyway falls, we would do this. in confronting the daunting challenge of climate change and dependence on foreign oil from dangerous areas of the world, we need to have all of the tools in our arsenal to achieve our long-term goals. no one should question the fact that hydrogen technology has a clear and important role to play. hydrogen is the most plentiful element in the universe, we're never going to run out of it. fuel-cell vehicles are gasoline free, representing a dramatic opportunity to break away from our current addiction to foreign oil. and fuel-cell vehicles are emission free. the national research council found that fuel-cell research technology should be a necessary

part of our energy portfolio if we're achieving the target of 80% greenhouse reduction in 2050. it is an important goal. in short, cars run on hydrogen have the potential to revolutionize on-road transportation, change our every day travel experience and clean up our environment. our nation's automotive companies have made significant strives in meeting or exceeding the administration's interim goals for fuel-cell costs, but they have much work to do. while the united states, and i have seen come on the floor of the chair of the energy and water subcommittee, and i want to salute him for understanding the need for hydrogen fuel cells. as i said, this is one area where the administration has a hard to explain blind spot. while we are twiddling our

thumbs in this area, debating whether we should fund, it other countries understand the importance of this technology and are aggressively moving ahead to develop di hydrogen-ful vehicles. we can develop hydroyesterday and fuel cells on a faster timeline than competing nations. the alternative to abandon a promising technology and allow the work to be the foundation of our competitor's success is not acceptable. in conclusion, madam president, i hope that this hedges with its increase in -- this legislation with its increase in hydrogen fuel cell will increase and that the department will understand the necessity to continue the research at honeywell falls. i yield back the floor. mr. brown: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: thank you, madam president. in 1945 president truman

delivered a speech to a joint session of congress in which he declared millions of our citizens do not have a full measure of opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health. millions do not now have protection or security against economic effects of sickness. the time has arrived for action to help them obtain that opportunity and that protection. unfortunately little happened after president truman's speech. it is my hope that 64 years later we'll finally be able to achieve the reform that president truman envisioned and that our country deserves. we can't settle for marginal improvement. we must fight for substantial reforms that significantly improve our health insurance system. every day ohioans are frustrated with health insurance that is nearly impossible to afford. every day ohioans are stuck with health insurance that fails to protect them from catastrophic health costs. every day ohioans deal with health insurance that too often

discriminates based on age, gender, and location and medical history. millions of americans are one illness away from financial ruin. 14,000 americans -- 14,000 americans lose their coverage every day. 45 million americans are uninsured. millions more -- tens of millions more are under insured. we can find a way for americans who have coverage to keep it and for those americans who lack coverage to guy. we can find the will to boost our health care system so that it's far less costly, it's inclusive, and it's far more patient centered. we can make historic improvements in our health care system which harkens back to the day 44 years ago tomorrow, july 30th, 1965, when president johnson signed medicare into law. what can we learn. the medicare experience taught us that progress in this country

doesn't come easily, in the face of false claims, inflammatory rhetoric and twisted facts. it also taught us that progress is not always a function of bipartisanship as much as we'd like it to be. most republicans today won't support fundamental reform regardless of what form it takes. we learned that lesson from medicare. if you go back to key congressional votes on medicare in 1965 overwhelming number of republicans voted no, overwhelming number of the democratic majority voted yes. gerald ford voted no, strom thurmond voted no, bob dole voted no. bob dole said in the 1956 debate speaking for -- 1965 debate speaking for the great majority of the republicans in the house and senate, he bragged fighting voting against medicare because we knew it wouldn't work. his words. it's no surprise that the only time republicans had a chance to make meaningful reform to

medicare when the stars aligned when they had a conservative republican president and large republican majorities in both houses for the first time since medicare formed in 2003, they partially privatized medicare. they did it -- i was there in the house of representatives literally in the middle of the night, literally by one vote when most americans were asleep. i don't blame those in those days for hiding that bill from the american people. it was a medicare written by the drug industry and for the drug industry. it was a medicare bill written for the insurance companies and by the insurance companies and it is pure and simple it started medicare down the road to privatization six years ago when it happened. we're seeing the same tactics today. many republicans want to defeat health care reform in order to break president obama, making it in the words of one of my conservative colleagues, making it his waterloo. a fine example of partisanship trumping the national interests. special interest groups, the

health insurance industry, the drug industry are spending millions of dollars -- millions of dollars to influence health reform legislation. they're deriding everything that doesn't inflate profits. special interests are pulling out all of the stops. it is the same page out of a tired playbook that informed then private citizen ronald reagan in the early 1960's when he warned americans if medicare were enacted, ronald reagan said, one of these days one of these days if -- reagan said, one of these days you and i are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it once was like to live in america when men were free. that's what he thought of medicare. the american people didn't share ronald reagan's opposition to medicare, but the influential special interests did share it. they played every card and attempted to derail health care coverage for seniors. before medicare was signed into

law, 50% of senior citizens were uninsured. so 44 years ago today, 50% of senior citizens were uninsured. today, only 3% are uninsured. 1995, speaker of the house newt gingrich said he wished that medicare would wither on the vine. that was the beginning of their privatization efforts. progress has never come easily in our anything's history. passage of the civil rights act in 1964 was not easy. passage of the voting rights act in 1965 was not easy. enactment of medicare and medicaid in 1965 was not easy. every major step forward in our nation's history, every progressive move forward, it is never easy. passage of legislation to prohibit discrimination against women, the elderly and people with disabilities, as senator harkin said on the floor yesterday, that legislation wasn't easy. but that doesn't mean we stand down. it doesn't mean that a popular president or democratic majorities in congress should give in on every major principle

as we enact health care reform. medicare changed our nation, it helped pull millions of seniors out of poverty, it fostered independence and helped fuel our economy. it helped retirees live long and healthy lives. the united states does not rank particularly high in life expectancy compared to the industrial -- rich industrial democracies. but if you reach 65 in america, we rank near the top for life expectancy at 65. so if you get to be 65 in the united states of america, you're likely to live a longer, healthier life than most -- than the great majority of people around the world, even in the rich industrial countries. health care reform will change our nation. it will end uncertainty about health care coverage because private and public insurance will always be available. that's why we have the public option that was supported by so many of us, including the presiding officer from north carolina. it will confront the needless red tape, the medical errors, the fraud and abuse that inflate

health care costs and compromise health care quality. it will harness the power of market competition to drive premiums down and customer saxes up. we know that. we want a public option competing with private plans. both will get better as a result t. will finally allow our nation to move on from the human tragedy, from the health care-related bankruptcies, from the endless march of double-digit premium increases, from the competitive disadvantage that american businesses face as health care expenses just explode. the "help" committee made the first strong step toward health insurance reform that keeps what works and fixes what's broken. but our work won't be done until crucial national priorities are nno longer crowded out by health care spending. our work won't be done until exploding health care costs no longer cut into family budgets, no longer weigh down businesses, no longer drain tax dollars from local coffers, state coffers and from the federal budget. we will and we must keep working

and keep fighting for the change people are demanding. we'll keep fighting for the ohioans i met in cleveland last week at -- at the medworks -- at medworks, where hundreds and hundreds of people were provided free medical care from volunteer doctors and nurses and hospita hospitals. when zach ponsky, a young banker in cleveland, decided -- this brainchild of putting in medworks program together. none of this will be easy. when president johnson signed medicare 44 years ago tomorrow in independence, missouri, with harry truman alongside him, he demonstrated that the hardest-fought battles yield the greatest victories. when our 44th president signs health care reform into later latelawlater this year, we'll fy realize harry truman's vision six decades later. thank you very much. madam president, i yield the floor.

mr. dorgan: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. mr. dorgan: madam president, i ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending business and call up amendment 1855. the presiding officer: without objection. the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: the senator from north dakota, mr. dorgan, proposes an amendment numbered 1855 to amendment number 1813. mr. dorgan: madam president, i ask unanimous consent to dispose with the reading of the amendment. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. dorgan: madam president, this amendment has been cleared on both sides. i believe there is no further debate, and i ask for the immediate consideration of the amendment. the presiding officer: the question is on the amendment. all those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. mr. dorgan: madam president, i make a point of order that a quorum is not present. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. mr. dorgan: madam president, i ask unanimous con is not the quorum call be very indicated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. dorgan: madam president, while senator bennett and i are awaiting our colleagues to offer amendments on the appropriations bill, i want to speak in morning business for ten minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. dorgan: madam president, our country is in a very deep economic hole, the most significant economic decline since the great depression. and much of it, in my judgment, is attributable to the fact that we have created an economy in recent years, especially the last decade, decade and a half, two decades, in which we have responsible businessmen and women in engaged in casino-like

gambling and they do it under the rubric of business, quote, unquote. in 1995 -- excuse me, 1994, 15 years ago, i wrote the cover story for the "washington monthly" magazine titled "very risky business," and the subtitle of that article that i wrote, which was the cover story that month, "very risky business," the subtitle was about the banks in this country trading very risky derivatives which i said i felt could lead to the taxpayers being on the hook for bailouts. that was 15 years ago. at that point, there was $16 trillion of notional value of derivatives, and banks even then, which prompted me to write the article, were trading very risky derivatives on their own proprietary acts, which i thought was un-- accounts, which i thought was unbelievably ignorant of the risk that was involved. well, those $16 trillion of notional value of derivatives

exploded way, way, way beyond anyone's expectation and then at the same time that the trading of derivatives and swaps was exploding, new instruments were being developed, credit default swaps and c.d.o.'s and all kinds of exotic instruments to be traded back and forth creating a dramatic amount of additional risk. and even as all that was occurring, we saw the development of a subprime loan scandal in which we were watching brokers and mortgage banks provide entreaties to those who had homes or those who wish to buy homes, come get a mortgage from us. you have batted credit, slow pay, no patience you've been bankrupt? come to us, we'd like to give you a loan. and so subprime home loans, some called liar's loans, don't even have to tell them, the person who's going to give you the loan, what your income is. and oh, by the way, you don't have to pay any principal. we'll wrap that around the backside. just pay interest. can't pay interest?

then name your own payment. don't want to do that? then don't pay any principal and don't pay all of your interest, we'll wrap it around the backside and you don't even have to describe what your income is. and by the way, you get a mortgage from us. oh, we're not going to tell you that it's going to reset in three years because we're giving you a 2% teaser rate right now, which means your home loan going to be way, way, way down here and it's going to look really good. but the reset that's going to happen in 24 or 36 months, you're never going to be able to make the payments. but as long as everyone was fat and happy making a lot of money putting out the bad loans and slicing up into securities, mortgage-backed securities, and trading them up to the hedge funds and up to the investment banks and everybody was making a lot of money, fat and happy and not asking any questions and then the whole thing collapses. and it's derivatives, it's swaps, mortgage-backed securities, it all collapses in a sea of greed, with unbelievable risk. and it brought down with it some

of america's largest financial institutions. now i describe all of that gambling and all of that risk because something else happened last year that has the american people concerned and worried and they should be. wondering, what was the cause of it? her's what happened last year. this is a chart that shows the price of oil, crude." it actually went from $60 a barrel in october of 2006 up to $147 a barrel in july of 2008. it went up like a roman candle and came right back down. by the way, the same folks that made the money on the upside, made the money going back the other way starting last july. unbelievable speculation in a market called the oil futures mark. now, this is not abstract graph. this means right up here someplace every american that went to the gas pump to fill up their vehicle with gasoline was paying through the nose. $4 or $4.50 a gallon.

so the question for them, and the question for other users -- airlines, for example, were hemorrhaging, what has resulted in the unbelievable spike in oil prices? the answer, an orgy of speculation in the oil futures market by interests that were not before, never before, at that point, manipulating that marketplace. investment banks for the first time actually buying oil storage and holding it off the marketplace until the price rises. just as an example. the oil futures market, it is estimated, was populated in terms of the trades by somewhere between two thirds to three-fourths of the trades coming from speculators -- not people moving the physical commodity back and forth or people who would want to sell the physical commodity to

somebody that wants to buy the physical commodity because they want oil, instead, specific lawyers who were simply betting on this. could have again to las vegas. didn't need to. they were able to go to the oil futures market and make a lot of money going up and a lot of money going down and the victims were the american drives that had to fill their gas tanks with gasoline. now, i'm describing this because yesterday there was a hearing in this town by the commodity futures trading commission that has largely been dead from the neck up for some while, uninterested in regulating, despite the fact that's their charge. sitting on their hands doing nothing, and all of last year while this was going on, the price of oil was going up u up,, up, they said this was just supply and demand. now, there's another agency, other than the commodity futures trading committeings that didn't did its job and that's an agency that we're actually funding. senator bennett and i are

funding it in this bill, e.i.a., energy information administration, with several hundred people working there. it is a very important agency providing substantial amounts of information to our country, to policy-makers, about what is happening with energy. now, i want to show you what has happened with the e.i.a. we spent $110 million a year on this agency, several hundred people, good people, smart people, the best in the business we assume. here's what happens: in may of 2007 they had to make an estimate -- that's what they do, they make an stilt. what's the price of oil going to be? well, they started here, and they said here's where we think the price of oil is going, right that way. so may of 2007 -- i don't know what they had to eat but smag wa --something was affecting the

brain. these are smart people, the best, we spend a lot of money getting their advice. so let's pick january of 2008. they made a new estimate. here's where we think the price of oil is going to go. well, the price of oil didn't do this, the price of oil went like this. almost straight up. so what did they get wrong? april of 2008. here's what we think the price of oil will do. here is what it did. my point is, this agency, along with the commodity futures trading commission would come to our committee at a hearing and i would say, what is it that you get it so unbelievably wrong and they said, it's supply and demand. that's total rubbish. the fact is, even while this was happening, the supply was going up and demand was going down which meant that the price of oil would not be going up like a roman candle but would be

moderating. instead, speculators captured that market. that's why e.i.a. got it so strong. they didn't have the foggiest idea what they were doing -- supply and demand -- total nonsense. but we know what happened to the prices. now, yesterday, the reason i wanted to discuss this for a moment, yesterday, "wall street journal" had a story, the commodity futures trading commission -- this is the commission that last year spent all of their time telling us this was just supply and demand -- we knew better but either they knew better, as well, and wouldn't admit it or they didn't know better -- that agency was insisting it was supply and demand. the very same agency now, with a new head, will issue a report next week according to the "wall street journal," the next month, i should say, suggesting speculators played a significant role to driving wild swings in oil prices.

i mean, three people in my hometown cafe of 300 people -- i come from a small town, and three people over a strong cup of coffee knew that last year. wild swings in oil prices as a result of speculators. last year, the same agency said u.s. futures markets pin oil price swings primarily on supply and demand but the new report will say that analysis was based on "deeply flawed data." so the question is, what does all this mean? it means that if we are going to have some impact on an economy that we put back on some solid foundation, we've get to have markets that work and we've got to have regulators that aren't blind. i happen to think the free market system is the best system of allocating goods and services

that i know. i taught economics ever so briefly in college and i always say i was able to overcome that, nonetheless, and lead a productive life, but the field of economics is something that is so important in terms of understanding how markets work. i believe the free market system is an incredibly good system -- not perfect. the free market system needs effective oversight and regulation from time to time. that means that we have regulators that are supposed to be wearing the striped shirts, blowing the whistle and calling the 230u8s because, yes, there -- the fouls because, yes, there are fouls in the free market system. go back and ask teddy roosevelt when he was a trust buster. what was he doing? busting the interests trying to subvert the free market system. the sam thing happens today. we have interests -- and i have described it earlier -- interests that want to subvert

the system by getting engaged in substantial risk and establishing mechanisms by which they can control a market at the expense of the rest of the american people. that is what i believe has happened in the oil futures market. the oil futures market is very important. and we need to make it work the right way, it ought to work responding to the urges of supply and demand but regrettably, that has not been the case. and my hope now is that the commodity futures trading commission will be able to take the kind of action necessary to straighten this market out. every market needs liquidity, so some speculators will play a role but when speculators capture the market and begin to play the kind of gains that were played last year, that has a profound impact on this country's economy and we should expect, we should expect that the agencies that are hired to do the regulatory oversight, do

their jobs, and do it properly. that has not been the case for some while. so my hope will be that with the new report coming out that will finally assign the responsibility of excess speculation on this perversion of the marketplace, my hope is we will have effective regulators that will take action. what should that action be? my own view is the commodity futures trading commission should designate a distinction between the traders in this marketplace. those that are truly trading a physical commodity because they're engaled in the engaged e marketplace because that is their business and those that are speculators and the commodity futures trading commission could determine what kind of margin requirements, what kind of speculative limits should exist so that activity does not subvert the marketplace.

now, let me be quick to say that there are people who will listen to me and who will hear what i say, and they will say, you don't have the foggiest idea what you are talking about. if all this system works, none of that, that you described existed. all of that risk by the smartest people in the room, the top investment banks that took on this massive amount of risk -- the investment banks buying oil storage to buy oil and take it off the market until it goes up in price -- all of that is just business. it's not just business. just business is running a business the right way. does anyone believe it was just business to have the biggest financial enterprises in this country run into the ditch because of bad behavior by those that were running the companies? by the way, some of whom are still running the same companies. and, by the way, with respect to solutions, does anyone think that it is just business to decide if we had institutions in this country that were too big to fail that loaded up with risk

and then failed and the taxpayer was told they can't be allowed to fail they are too big. and now we say to the same businesses, we will not get rid of too big to fail but allow you to merge with other firms making you too big to fail. we have a lost work to do to address the issues and some of the causes that caused the economic collapse last year. i want to put the economy back on track, first and for most. and it starts with jobs and restoring confidence. confidence is everything about this economy. when people have confidence, they will do the things that are expansive for the country -- by clothes, by a car, take a trip. when they are not confident they do the opposite. i want the american people to have confidence. i want them to have confidence to believing that federal acknowledges who hire regulators are going to look over the shoulder and provide the oversight to make sure this

isn't going to happen again, to make sure someone will not subvert a marketplace that makes the rest of the american people victims. all of this, in my judgment, with good government, can be done. but it will not be done if we have regulators who boast about being willfully blind. it will be done if we understand our responsibility to make sure the free market system is, indeed, free. madam president, i yield the floor. i make a point of order that a quorum is not present. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. dorgan: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota n. mr. dorgan: i ask consent that the quorum call be vacated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. dorgan: it is nearly 2:00 on wednesday, we've been on this bill since monday, and senator bennett and i have spent a lot of time on the floor waiting for amendments to be offered. we've had several. we appreciate that. we have many filed, but not offered. and i know that the majority leader has filed a cloture petition, which would ripen tomorrow, so we would have a cloture vote tomorrow. our hope has been that we would

not get to that point. in as much as we have waited an waited very patiently for senators who do have amendments that they wish to offer and have not come to offer them, senator bennett and i have talked about perhaps going to a third reading this afternoon at 5:00 and so i would ask if there are those senators and or staff who have amendments that they wish to have considered on this legislation, that they would -- they keep that in mind. we have a couple of hours here. so senator bennett and i have talked about going to a third reading by 5:00. and i would ask people to come here an offer amendments. let's -- and offer amendments. let's have debates and have votes an see if we can -- and see if we can resolve this legislation this afternoon. i make a point of order that a quorum is not present.

the presiding officerthe presidk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland is recognized. mr. cardin: i ask unanimous consent the call of the quorum be dispensed. .the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. cardin: i ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. cardin: mr. president, i've taken the floor before to talkut