Maria Cantwell

Ms. CANTWELL

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

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that on Tuesday, November 15, 2011, at 11 a.m., the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations: Calendar No. 354 and Calendar No. 355; that there be 1 hour for debate equally divided in the usual form; that upon the use or yielding back of time the Senate proceed to vote without intervening action or debate on the nominations in the order listed; that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order to any of the nominations; that any statements related to the nominations be printed in the Record; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate then resume legislative session.

Ms. CANTWELL

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

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, the senior Senator from Maryland, for her leadership on this issue for protecting seniors and protecting women. It seems to me every time we have a battle that is about undercutting the benefits to women in America, Barbara Mikulski is on the Senate floor or in the halls and in various meeting rooms making sure that America knows what these proposals are. I could not have been more proud of her when she led all the women Senators on the Democratic side of the aisle to push back on the Bush Administration's proposal to privatize Social Security. At that point in time, she most succinctly told Americans that women, more than any other in that age group, would suffer because they live longer, they depend on Social Security, and if Social Security was privatized, women would feel the brunt of it. So I am proud to be out here this afternoon with her to talk about this proposal that has been--we cannot tell, because we do not know. We are not on the supercommittee. But it seems to be floating around in various forms, various organizations may be talking about it, the notion that we would change Social Security. I know at home in my State of Washington, people seem to be confused when we are talking about our budgets. And we are obviously having to make tough budget decisions, as are people around dining room tables, around city halls, around our State capitols and here in Congress are having discussions about how to have a budget to live within our means. But when you talk to them about the primary way--and one proposal that surfaced in the last budget negotiations in July was to automatically take $300 billion of cuts right off the top as the major proposal out of a concept called chained CPI. When you think about that, the first shot of budget cuts would be on the backs of seniors, it is almost as if someone thought seniors cooked up exotic financial instruments and foisted them on the U.S. economy and somehow they should pay the price. We know that is not the case. So why are people targeting these seniors now? And we are not sure if they are. We have just heard various rumors that perhaps this notion of chained CPI, a change in Social Security benefits as my colleague just outlined, would be a proposal. I am here to say, I am not for having the seniors in America share the brunt of sacrifice with a proposal such as this that would clearly be on the backs of seniors. It is not something they can afford. I know some of my colleagues may have endorsed a chained CPI, a change in the consumer price index to calculate inflation. But that is a cut that would increase over time. And literally, the longer you live, the more you are penalized. It is such a disproportionate impact to women who do live longer than men and count on those benefits for their living. In my State, changes to the cost-of-living adjustment would hurt more than 1 million Washingtonians. Social Security has kept about 30 percent of Washington residents who are 65 and older out of poverty. That is what it has done for them. And what is more, 25 percent of seniors in my State live on Social Security alone. So there is a population that is depending on Social Security, and they are living on it alone, or it is making up--another 21 percent of them--it makes up 90 percent of their income. I think this demonstrates that we cannot support these kinds of cuts, especially at the magnitude this proposal is talking about. The Social Security Office of the Actuary has reported that chained CPI would reduce the COLA by about .3 percent a year. So let's look at that example. A single woman, 65 years old in Washington State, would get a monthly benefit of about $1,100 a month or $13,300 annually. By age 80, if chained CPI would pass, that would result in a $56 per month or $672 annual cut in that benefit. So that is less food, that is less medicine, that is less vital care for these seniors. If that individual actually lived to 90 years old, it would be an $87 a month cut and a $1,044 cut annually. If you think about the costs these seniors endure--and I for one have proposed changing the market basket of goods that the CPI is based on, because if you think about it, we have a market basket of goods for their CPI that are what the overall economy looks at. But seniors have a much more expensive market basket of goods. They have to buy more medicine. They have other additional out-of-pocket health care expenses. And so their costs are going up at a higher rate. But this proposal, if you think about it, the average monthly cost of food for a single elderly individual is about $231 per month. That is what the average is, about $53 a week. That is based on data from the Elder Economic Security Standard Index. So an individual at 80 basically means they would have 1 week less groceries under chained CPI. That is what it means. They would have 1 week left of groceries every month. In my State, when you think about the average out-of-pocket health care expenses seniors have for care, that average out-of-pocket expense rises by $1,400 for an individual. If you think about it alone, the increase in health care out-of-pocket expenses basically wipes out where many seniors are for any kinds of remaining income. Certainly, if we put this kind of cut on top of that, it would make it clear that seniors would be getting less from Social Security. We recently, for the first time since 2009, gave seniors an increase to their cost-of- living adjustment. Now what are we going to do--go backward and take it away? For 75 years, Americans have been paying into Social Security with the promise that they would receive these benefits in their retirement years. Now is not a time to break that promise. I think my colleague has clearly come to the floor with a message to our other colleagues who aren't here this afternoon, to say take a look at the details of this proposal. This is not a simple proposal about in the future someone is going to get less than they might under some other plan; this is about a cut in the benefit formula today that would impact seniors if implemented. So I am here with my colleague to say our economic situation has not been caused by seniors coming to Capitol Hill and proposing that we have opaque derivative markets. It wasn't caused by seniors coming and saying: Let's go ahead and have the banks get rid of Glass-Steagall so the banks can do whatever they want. Seniors didn't come here and foist this economic situation on us. Yet, where are the other proposals to help fix that? Yet, the No. 1 proposal we saw circulating in July was, right off the bat, $300 billion coming off the backs of seniors. That same proposal is still circulating in the Halls of Congress. My colleague and I are here this afternoon to say that it is not the proposal we should be considering. So I hope our other colleagues will stand up to protect seniors, particularly women, who are living longer, and make sure they have these important Social Security benefits. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Ms. CANTWELL. Yes.

Ms. CANTWELL. I can tell the Senator from Maryland that there are lots of ideas that people are suggesting. I don't know the details of the supercommittee or to say the Finance Committee is backing up the supercommittee on those ideas. I know we have to live within our budget, and we have to make some tough decisions. There are many positives in the health care law that are about allowing seniors to stay in their homes and receive care as opposed to going into nursing homes, which is very positive and helps reduce significantly the cost of health care. There are things in there that will help us get more transparency on drug prices. Many of us would like to have direct negotiations on drug prices and drive the costs down even further for seniors. And obviously there are reforms that will help us get more efficient in the delivery system. Those are things you can accentuate by moving more quickly. I know the Presiding Officer, coming from Minnesota, with the Mayo Clinic, certainly understands about outcome-based health care, preventive medicine, and those things seniors would like to see in reform that actually deliver better care and drive down costs. Those are the proposals that I think we should be discussing, that are positive for seniors, will help seniors, and will deliver the kind of care that is more efficient and cost-effective. But asking them to take it right on the chin with something like this proposal, as my colleague outlined as well, is something we are not willing to do. I thank the Chair and the Senator from Maryland for her tireless leadership on behalf of women in America and making sure they can make do in this tough economy. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations: Calendar Nos. 472, 473, 474, 475, 476, 477, 478, 479, 480, 481, 482, 483, 484, 485, 486, 487, 488, 489, 490, 491, and 492, and all nominations on the Secretary's desk in the Air Force, Army, and Navy; that the nominations be confirmed en bloc; that the motions to reconsider be made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order to any of the nominations; that any related statements be printed in the Record; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action; and that the Senate then resume legislative session.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. I thank the chairman of the Commerce Committee for his leadership on this important issue. I am glad to be on the Senate floor to set the record straight because we are here to talk about Internet freedom and about making sure the Internet does not have undue costs and expenses for consumers. If you liked TARP and you liked the bailout of the big banks, well, guess what. Then you should vote for this resolution because this resolution is about whether you are going to let the communications companies that want to make the Internet more expensive by various technologies have their way. If you believe the FCC should establish some rules to protect the freedom of the Internet, then you should oppose the Hutchison resolution. I prefer legislation that I have introduced, and some of my colleagues support, called the Freedom of the Internet Act, that goes further than what the Federal Communications Commission has done to implement true net neutrality. I would prefer that, and maybe in the future my colleagues will be working on such legislation. But as it is today, the Federal Communications Commission has taken a half step, if you will, by proposing some rules that will set in place some protections for consumers to make sure they are protected on important aspects of keeping Internet costs down. The problem with the FCC rules is they only apply in some cases to fixed broadband and not to mobile broadband. So if you think about it this way, the Internet is moving to a mobile broadband platform; that is, our hand-held devices, whether they are a BlackBerry or phone or what have you. So many more Americans are accessing the Internet that way. So the FCC has come up with rules on transparency and no blocking; that is, to make sure no content is blocked or slowed down for any undue cost or reason, and a nondiscrimination rule. Unfortunately, those two last points, no blocking and unreasonable discrimination, do not apply to the mobile side. So we have work to do to make sure the youth of America who are consuming so much content online through their mobile devices are not going to be artificially charged more or slowed down in their access all because the telecommunications industry wants to have its way with the Internet. My colleagues have been out here talking about innovation. I can tell you, the Internet has had a ton of innovation and a ton of content creation, all because there has been an even playing field and net neutrality. The fact now is that the telecommunications companies are debating an important issue, and the lines get blurred between telecommunications and the Internet, and it is clear we do not have all of the rules in place to make sure consumer interests are protected. But today we have one thing: the FCC rules that are trying to slow down telecommunication companies from artificially either blocking or making content on the Internet more expensive. Again, when we go to the mobile phone model and we are being charged for time and data transfer, the fact that the data transfer and time take longer means we are going to have more expensive phone bills. That is why I said it was TARP- like, because the ``cha-ching'' we are going to hear from the phone companies on the money they are going to make from this is unbelievable. So thank God the FCC took a half step and said: Whoa. Slow down. We are not going to let you do that. That is why people like Vint Cerf and Tim Berners-Lee, the architects and inventors pushing the Internet, have said what a bad idea it is to not make sure that net neutrality is the law of the land. I notice my colleague who just spoke said, well, there have not been any problems. There have not been any issues. I read the online publications. Larry Lessig, someone I trust, was recounting in one of his interviews exactly what happened. Comcast went in and basically blocked large data files of peer-to-peer transfer, what is called bit torrent traffic. First, Comcast said: No, no. We do not do that. We did not block that. We do not do it. But when it was basically found out that they did, they said: Oh, no, we did not block it. We just slowed it down. They sent little messages, as Mr. Lessig says in his article, to the Internet traffic to confuse the recipient and basically disrupt their traffic. OK? So that is what is happening. These providers think if they can control the pipe, now they can also control the flow. It is also, as Mr. Lessig said later in this article, as if the entire electricity grid, our refrigerators and our toasters and our dryers, all of a sudden would start charging different rates on different things because the electricity company would decide it had the ability to charge different rates. Would we put up with that? No, we would not put up with that. So why would we put up with allowing telcos to run at will on the Internet charging consumers anything they want based on the fact that they think they have the control of the switch? I am so proud the chairman, Senator Rockefeller, has led this fight for the freedom of the Internet to drive down costs, to keep innovation, and to protect net neutrality. The FCC rules do not go far enough. We cannot continue to have this half step and not clearly, on the mobile side, give consumers the protection they need. But for today, if you want to vote with Internet consumers and Internet users on driving down the costs of the Internet, then vote against this resolution and keep the minimal FCC rules in place until we can get stronger legislation passed. Make no mistake about it, the other side is talking about, well, they do not want to regulate the Internet. That is true. They do not want to regulate telcos that want to take advantage of the fact that they own the pipe and can charge a lot more. I am glad the FCC at least took this measure. We should make sure it stands until we can even get stronger Internet freedom protection. I yield the floor.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, as we consider the nomination of Heather Higginbottom to be Deputy Director of OMB, I would like to bring to the attention of my colleagues my concern for how OMB and the Coast Guard have been conducting business. The Arctic is opening at an alarming rate, which creates new requirements for the U.S. Coast Guard and the Navy. Multiple Presidential directives call for Arctic presence to meet national security and homeland security needs; to facilitate safe, secure, and reliable navigation; to protect maritime commerce, and to protect the environment as resource development increases. Polar icebreakers are critical to meet our national needs in the Arctic. According to a recent independent study, the Coast Guard and the Navy need six heavy-duty icebreakers and four medium icebreakers. This is not a political document; it is a study of the national security and commercial viability of the United States. It is not a surprise to this Senator that any third party, any independent judgment maker, or anyone paying attention as the Chinese, and the Russians, oil companies, even pirates actively stake claims in the Arctic, that the United States needs to be prepared to engage to protect its interests there. In the Coast Guard Reauthorization Act of 2010, we required the Coast Guard to complete a comparative business case analysis to determine how we can revitalize icebreaking fleet while maximizing taxpayer dollars. This study was due on October 15, and today I have come to the floor because the law is being ignored. The Coast Guard and OMB have failed to deliver this report that I remind you was required by law to be delivered to Congress days ago. Even more distressing to me is that the Coast Guard is moving forward with decommissioning one of only two of our Nation's heavy duty icebreakers. We think this is unwise, and it is exactly why the Congress required a study of such an action. Surely the administration isn't simply choosing to flout the law by moving forward before this cost-benefit analysis has been completed or reviewed by Congress. So I know Heather Higginbottom is probably keenly interested in the debate going on here today, and I hope that if she is listening and if she is confirmed as the Deputy Director of OMB, she will take this leadership opportunity to transform the way OMB does its business. It is time for OMB to stop holding up congressionally directed reports. I know there are a lot of smart people over at OMB, and they may not always like the people and their representatives questioning their judgment. However, even OMB must follow the law, and in this case they must deliver the business case analysis to Congress immediately. Some of the folks over at OMB may not agree with the Congress that polar icebreaker assets should be a priority. And while everyone is entitled to their opinion, even if it illustrates a complete lack of understanding of our national security needs, in our system of government Congress makes the laws, and at least this Senator expects them to be followed.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, in that en bloc group of amendments was an important amendment, amendment No. 893, as modified, that was sponsored by my colleagues from the Northwest--obviously myself, Senator Murray, Senator Wyden, Senator Merkley, Senator Boxer, and Senator Feinstein. We thought it was very important that this amendment pass tonight because scientists are calling it a disease emergency; that is, that the Pacific Northwest wild salmon might be threatened by a virus that has already decimated fish farm salmon from around the world. So we want to see, first of all, important scientific questions answered about the impacts of this virus, and the threat they pose to Pacific Northwest salmon. Second, we want to make sure there is an aggressive management plan and an effective rapid response plan to deal with the threat of this virus. And, third, we want to make sure we are protecting the wild salmon and the important economy that goes with it. I know many people know the Northwest is known for a healthy salmon population, but this salmon population is also an economy for us. It is tens of thousands of jobs and hundreds of millions of dollars as it relates to our economy. So being able to detect this virus and make sure we are assessing the potential threat to the wild salmon population is something we want to see happen immediately. This makes sure the task force, which is a joint task force already in place between NOAA and the USDA, works effectively in a very short time period to make sure we are getting this accurate assessment. As I mentioned, this virus in the farm fish population around the world--in Chile and other places--has decimated salmon. We cannot risk having this impact the Pacific Northwest wild salmon. So we need answers quickly from the scientific community. We need an action plan immediately. And we need to make sure we are formulating a rapid response as to what to do if we do detect this virus is spreading, with the potential impact we have seen in other areas. I thank my colleagues for making sure this amendment was adopted tonight. I know Senator Murkowski had planned earlier to talk about this. I want to thank Senator Hutchison from Texas for helping us move this along in the process. I hope now, as we move this legislation, we will also get the cooperation from NOAA and Secretary Lubchenco and others, and those at NMFS, to make sure we are responding very rapidly to this very serious, what people have called the scientific need to get these questions answered as soon as possible. I thank the Presiding Officer and yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. CANTWELL

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

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I know my colleagues here want to join in on the debate that just transpired, but I wanted to take a minute to talk about Senate bill 1542, which passed last night. I know, just as people are frustrated here with everything that is going on, I think it is important to stop for a second, when something does pass and it is good policy, that we talk about it, and that is the Child and Family Services Improvement and Innovation Act. Congress took a pretty big step last night by improving the lives of children by the passage of this legislation. It is about keeping families together. It is about rewarding government efficiency and driving down costs, and it is about giving flexibility to invest in programs that are proven to work for kids and families. This bill is about America's children. It is about making sure that America's foster care program works for children so they can keep their families together. Too often, our Federal policies have punished States which have innovative programs, giving States money based on how many kids were still in foster care instead of rewarding success and innovation that helped transition children out of the foster care system and back with their families. Let me tell you what has happened in Washington State. We have been implementing innovative programs to improve foster care for many years now. When Washington State noticed a disproportionate number of Native- American children being placed in foster care, our advocates took action and implemented the Washington Indian Child Welfare Act in developing strategies for strengthening tribal relationships and promoting the best interests of Native-American children. When Washington State noticed in general how long children were staying in foster care, advocates took action, this time implementing policies to help reduce the length of stay for children in out-of-home care. As a result, the median length of stay for children in out-of- home care declined almost 100 days between 2009 and 2011. In addition, Washington State reduced its foster care caseloads by 13.8 percent during a similar time period. Unfortunately, instead of being rewarded for these actions, we were penalized, and that is what this legislation has helped to correct. In fact, we lost $2.7 million during that time period. So this legislation, instead of punishing Washington State for keeping kids out of foster care, helps us ensure the kind of innovation that will help us to make sure the best programs are implemented. This allows Washington to increase its capacity to keep doing the things that keep children who have been in the foster care system from being in the foster care system the entirety of their childhood. This instead drives them, hopefully, successfully back with their families. Our State can invest in evidence-based programs that have proven to work, and just as this legislation will help us to do, it will make sure that children don't bounce from foster home to foster home on a continuing basis. We will help to keep kids out of the care system and, when possible, place them back safely with families. Washington State Representative Ruth Kagi, who has been a tireless advocate for this system, said it best: Title IV-E waivers can help the State move from purchasing specific services to purchasing specific outcomes. I thank Chairman Baucus and Ranking Member Hatch for their timely and innovative work on this legislation. I wish my colleagues could have been at the hearing that was held earlier this year when Senator Baucus asked young adults, who had been part of the foster system for their entire lives, how to change the system. I thank the chairman for taking into consideration the specific improvements and innovations that Washington State has advocated. And I thank my colleague, Representative Jim McDermott, and the Washington State legislators who worked on this, including Partners for Our Children, the Children's Home Society of Washington, and the various social workers and advocates who, in our State, continue to try to innovate when it comes to foster care in America. This legislation is a major step forward to promote innovation on a Federal basis and to help keep families together. In doing so, we will have the benefit of also driving more efficiency and driving down the cost. But, more importantly, we are going to be working to strengthen America's children and families by trying effectively to keep them together. I thank the President, and I yield the floor.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. I ask consent to speak as if in morning business.

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

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation aimed at breaking oil's monopoly over our Nation's transportation system. I would like to thank Senator Lugar for helping develop and agreeing to cosponsor this important bill. The Open Fuels Standard Act of 2011 would introduce competition among fuels in the U.S. transportation market by ensuring that most new vehicles in the United States will be capable of running on a range of domestically produced alternative fuels. By introducing competition among fuels, the Open Fuels Standard, OFS, Act aims to bring bout significant reductions in the high prices paid by U.S. consumers at the gas pump and in our Nation's dangerous overdependence on foreign oil. According to the Department of Energy, this lack of competition imposes a ``monopoly premium'' of more than $200 billion on the economy each year--a direct transfer of U.S. wealth to the treasuries of OPEC countries and other foreign oil producers. Keeping this money within U.S. borders would sharply cut the U.S. trade deficit, safeguard U.S. household income, and provide capital and market incentive for investment in new U.S. energy infrastructure. The Open Fuels Standard Act requires that starting in 2015, 50 percent of new vehicles manufactured or sold in the United States be flex fuel capable--that is, able to run on non-petroleum fuels. These fuels would include domestically-produced ethanol or methanol or other alcohols in addition to--or instead of--petroleum-based fuels. In 2018, 80 percent of new vehicles would need to be flex-fuel capable. Adoption of an Open Fuels Standard would spur the development and use of alcohol fuels such as ethanol and methanol that can be made from a wide variety of domestic energy resources including agricultural waste, energy crops, natural gas, and even trash. By increasing the share of these abundant domestic fuels in the U.S. market, the Open Fuels Standard Act has the potential to eliminate major drag on the American economy, creating new jobs, strengthening our national security, and addressing challenging environmental concerns such as air quality and climate change. Today's introduction of the Open Fuels Standard Act coincides with yesterday's launch of the United States Energy Security Council. The new Council's purpose is to focus on reducing U.S. energy vulnerability and enhancing national security by finding alternatives to foreign oil. This new group's members include former Secretary of State George Shultz, former Secretaries of Defense William Perry and Harold Brown, as well as three former national security advisers, a former C.I.A. director, two former senators, a Nobel laureate, a former Federal Reserve chairman, and several Fortune-50 chief executives. The U.S. Energy Security Council is calling for Congress to enact a requirement such as the Open Fuels Standard to end oil's monopoly as the lynchpin of U.S. energy security, according to a New York Times op- ed on September 21 by council members former National Security Advisor Robert C. McFarlane and former Director of Central Intelligence R. James Woolsey. The Open Fuels Standard Act will also complement and advance other key legislation that Congress has passed in recent years with the goals of transforming the U.S. energy system to make it more secure, more affordable, and more environmentally sustainable. For example, the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act included the Renewable Fuels Standard, requiring the production of 36 billion gallons of biofuels by 2022, and raising CAFE standards, corporate average fuel economy, for the first time in 20 years for SUVs and trucks. The Open Fuels Standard Act, in conjunction with policies such as these that we fought hard for in previous Congresses, will play a major role in achieving our long- term national energy goals. Oil has had a monopoly over transportation fuel for too long and American drivers have had no choice but to pay volatile and elevated prices at the pump. I am encouraged by the broad bipartisan and stakeholder support for the Open Fuels Standard Act, and again would like to thank Senator Lugar, which I believe is a recognition that this approach will really help diversify our Nation's energy supply and spur investment and job creation.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation aimed at breaking oil's monopoly over our Nation's transportation system. I would like to thank Senator Lugar for helping develop and agreeing to cosponsor this important bill. The Open Fuels Standard Act of 2011 would introduce competition among fuels in the U.S. transportation market by ensuring that most new vehicles in the United States will be capable of running on a range of domestically produced alternative fuels. By introducing competition among fuels, the Open Fuels Standard, OFS, Act aims to bring bout significant reductions in the high prices paid by U.S. consumers at the gas pump and in our Nation's dangerous overdependence on foreign oil. According to the Department of Energy, this lack of competition imposes a ``monopoly premium'' of more than $200 billion on the economy each year--a direct transfer of U.S. wealth to the treasuries of OPEC countries and other foreign oil producers. Keeping this money within U.S. borders would sharply cut the U.S. trade deficit, safeguard U.S. household income, and provide capital and market incentive for investment in new U.S. energy infrastructure. The Open Fuels Standard Act requires that starting in 2015, 50 percent of new vehicles manufactured or sold in the United States be flex fuel capable--that is, able to run on non-petroleum fuels. These fuels would include domestically-produced ethanol or methanol or other alcohols in addition to--or instead of--petroleum-based fuels. In 2018, 80 percent of new vehicles would need to be flex-fuel capable. Adoption of an Open Fuels Standard would spur the development and use of alcohol fuels such as ethanol and methanol that can be made from a wide variety of domestic energy resources including agricultural waste, energy crops, natural gas, and even trash. By increasing the share of these abundant domestic fuels in the U.S. market, the Open Fuels Standard Act has the potential to eliminate major drag on the American economy, creating new jobs, strengthening our national security, and addressing challenging environmental concerns such as air quality and climate change. Today's introduction of the Open Fuels Standard Act coincides with yesterday's launch of the United States Energy Security Council. The new Council's purpose is to focus on reducing U.S. energy vulnerability and enhancing national security by finding alternatives to foreign oil. This new group's members include former Secretary of State George Shultz, former Secretaries of Defense William Perry and Harold Brown, as well as three former national security advisers, a former C.I.A. director, two former senators, a Nobel laureate, a former Federal Reserve chairman, and several Fortune-50 chief executives. The U.S. Energy Security Council is calling for Congress to enact a requirement such as the Open Fuels Standard to end oil's monopoly as the lynchpin of U.S. energy security, according to a New York Times op- ed on September 21 by council members former National Security Advisor Robert C. McFarlane and former Director of Central Intelligence R. James Woolsey. The Open Fuels Standard Act will also complement and advance other key legislation that Congress has passed in recent years with the goals of transforming the U.S. energy system to make it more secure, more affordable, and more environmentally sustainable. For example, the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act included the Renewable Fuels Standard, requiring the production of 36 billion gallons of biofuels by 2022, and raising CAFE standards, corporate average fuel economy, for the first time in 20 years for SUVs and trucks. The Open Fuels Standard Act, in conjunction with policies such as these that we fought hard for in previous Congresses, will play a major role in achieving our long- term national energy goals. Oil has had a monopoly over transportation fuel for too long and American drivers have had no choice but to pay volatile and elevated prices at the pump. I am encouraged by the broad bipartisan and stakeholder support for the Open Fuels Standard Act, and again would like to thank Senator Lugar, which I believe is a recognition that this approach will really help diversify our Nation's energy supply and spur investment and job creation.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the San Juan Islands National Conservation Area Act. The San Juan Islands in northwest Washington host some of the most beautiful, serene spots in the world. The San Juans are made up of 172 islands with over 300 miles of shoreline, some little more than rocks, others home to towns, farms, and forests. The coastlines are a mix of sandy and rocky beaches, shallow and deep harbors, and placid and reef- studded bays. And between the many islands run channels of water that support many of Washington's most important marine species, including abundant salmon runs and our majestic regional icon, the orca whale. Included in the San Juan Islands are nearly 1,000 acres of land owned by the Federal Government, spread out over 60 separate locations and managed by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, BLM. These parcels, which range from pine forests to lighthouses, provide recreational, ecological, historical, cultural, and scientific benefits to island residents and around 70,000 tourists that visit each year. Despite their value, no long-term comprehensive management plan exists for these Federal parcels, threatening continued preservation and public access to these sites. Many of these areas are fragile, increasing the challenge of accommodating increasing numbers of visitors. In addition, San Juan Island residents have seen the possibility of public lands they treasure being transferred to private ownership. In 2005, the Washington State Department of Natural Resources made a unilateral decision to divest itself of all its properties in San Juan County, including Mitchell Hill, a popular and scenic hiking trail on San Juan Island. While these lands were actively pursued by a private, out-of-state, real-estate developer, I was proud to work with the San Juan Island community to help secure Federal funding to keep these lands in the public domain. Unfortunately, the Bureau of Land Management lands in the San Juan Islands are not permanently protected or preserved in public ownership. Last July, Congressman Larsen, the Bureau of Land Management, and I visited with residents and businesses that have been working for years to permanently protect these special places. The legislation I introduce today is a direct result of our efforts and represents a consensus between the San Juan Island community, Congressman Larsen, and the Department of the Interior. If enacted, the San Juan Islands National Conservation Area Act will designate all 1,000 acres of BLM lands in the San Juans as a National Conservation Area, ensuring that these natural treasures remain protected, accessible to the public, and better managed to accommodate visitor use. National Conservation Area designated lands are considered some of the most important Bureau of Land Management properties and are therefore a higher priority for management funding than non-designated lands they manage. Specifically, National Conservation Area status would ensure the San Juan Island properties are appropriately managed to protect their unique qualities and not grouped in with other BLM lands where activities such as mining, oil and gas exploration, off road vehicle use, and grazing are allowed. Importantly, my legislation requires that the management plan drafting process allows for local input into how these properties are to be managed for the long-term. A National Conservation Area designation will also foster a stronger working relationship with other agency partners such as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and provide increased opportunities for sharing resources. I am looking forward to working to advance this legislation through the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and through the full Senate. Through our efforts we will work to ensure that future generations will be able to enjoy these special parts of the San Juan Islands. I would also like to thank my colleague Senator Murray for agreeing to cosponsor this legislation, and Congressman Larsen for his leadership and introducing companion legislation today in the House of Representatives. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the San Juan Islands National Conservation Area Act. The San Juan Islands in northwest Washington host some of the most beautiful, serene spots in the world. The San Juans are made up of 172 islands with over 300 miles of shoreline, some little more than rocks, others home to towns, farms, and forests. The coastlines are a mix of sandy and rocky beaches, shallow and deep harbors, and placid and reef- studded bays. And between the many islands run channels of water that support many of Washington's most important marine species, including abundant salmon runs and our majestic regional icon, the orca whale. Included in the San Juan Islands are nearly 1,000 acres of land owned by the Federal Government, spread out over 60 separate locations and managed by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, BLM. These parcels, which range from pine forests to lighthouses, provide recreational, ecological, historical, cultural, and scientific benefits to island residents and around 70,000 tourists that visit each year. Despite their value, no long-term comprehensive management plan exists for these Federal parcels, threatening continued preservation and public access to these sites. Many of these areas are fragile, increasing the challenge of accommodating increasing numbers of visitors. In addition, San Juan Island residents have seen the possibility of public lands they treasure being transferred to private ownership. In 2005, the Washington State Department of Natural Resources made a unilateral decision to divest itself of all its properties in San Juan County, including Mitchell Hill, a popular and scenic hiking trail on San Juan Island. While these lands were actively pursued by a private, out-of-state, real-estate developer, I was proud to work with the San Juan Island community to help secure Federal funding to keep these lands in the public domain. Unfortunately, the Bureau of Land Management lands in the San Juan Islands are not permanently protected or preserved in public ownership. Last July, Congressman Larsen, the Bureau of Land Management, and I visited with residents and businesses that have been working for years to permanently protect these special places. The legislation I introduce today is a direct result of our efforts and represents a consensus between the San Juan Island community, Congressman Larsen, and the Department of the Interior. If enacted, the San Juan Islands National Conservation Area Act will designate all 1,000 acres of BLM lands in the San Juans as a National Conservation Area, ensuring that these natural treasures remain protected, accessible to the public, and better managed to accommodate visitor use. National Conservation Area designated lands are considered some of the most important Bureau of Land Management properties and are therefore a higher priority for management funding than non-designated lands they manage. Specifically, National Conservation Area status would ensure the San Juan Island properties are appropriately managed to protect their unique qualities and not grouped in with other BLM lands where activities such as mining, oil and gas exploration, off road vehicle use, and grazing are allowed. Importantly, my legislation requires that the management plan drafting process allows for local input into how these properties are to be managed for the long-term. A National Conservation Area designation will also foster a stronger working relationship with other agency partners such as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and provide increased opportunities for sharing resources. I am looking forward to working to advance this legislation through the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and through the full Senate. Through our efforts we will work to ensure that future generations will be able to enjoy these special parts of the San Juan Islands. I would also like to thank my colleague Senator Murray for agreeing to cosponsor this legislation, and Congressman Larsen for his leadership and introducing companion legislation today in the House of Representatives. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I call up Cantwell amendment No. 595.

Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I encourage my colleagues to support the Cantwell amendment. The Cantwell amendment is the reinstatement of section 18 language as it passed the Senate. So casting a vote for the Cantwell amendment will be consistent with language previously supported by each Member. The reason we are trying to reinstate the Senate language is because the House language broadens a loophole that will allow for more confusion over patents that have already been issued. It will allow for the cancellation of patents already issued by the Patent Office, throwing into disarray and legal battling many companies that already believe they have a legitimate patent. The House language, by adding the word ``other,'' broadens the definition of section 18 and extends it for 8 years, so this chaos and disarray that is supposedly targeted at a single earmark for the banking industry to try to get out of paying royalties is now so broadened that many other technology companies will be affected. I urge my colleagues to support the Cantwell amendment and reinstate the language that was previously agreed to.

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, rising in opposition, this is not a patent reform bill, this is a big corporation patent giveaway that tramples on the rights of small inventors. It changes ``first to invent'' to ``first to file,'' which means if you are a big corporation and have lots of resources, you will get there and get the patent. Secondly, it doesn't keep the money where it belongs. It belongs in the Patent Office. Yet, instead of having reforms that will help us expedite patents, it is giving away the money that is needed to make this kind of innovation work. Third, the bill is full of special giveaways to particular industry corporations, as we have just witnessed with votes on the floor. Fourth, by taking away the business patent method language, you will make it more complicated and have years and years of lawsuits on patents that have already been issued. If this is job creation, I have news for my colleagues; in an innovation economy, it is siding with corporate interests against the little guy. I urge a ``no'' vote.

Ms. CANTWELL. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, simply my amendment restores section 18 of the language that was passed out of the Senate. Basically it implements the Senate language. I come to the floor today with much respect for my colleague Chairman Leahy, who has worked on this legislation for many years, and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who have tried to work on this important legislation and move it forward. I am sure it has been challenging. I mean no offense to my colleagues about this legislation. It simply is my perspective about where we need to go as a country and how we get there. I am excited that we live in an information age. In fact, one of the things that I count very fortunate in my life is that this is the age we live in. I often think if I lived in the agrarian age, maybe I would be farming. That is also of great interest, given the State of Washington's interests in agriculture. Maybe I would live in the industrial age when new factories were being built. That would be interesting. But I love the fact that whether you are talking about agriculture, whether you are talking about automotive, whether you are talking about health care, whether you are talking about software, whether you are talking about communications, whether you are talking about space travel, whether you are talking about aviation, we live in an information age where innovation is created every single day. In fact, we are transforming our lives at a much more rapid pace than any other generation because of all that transformation. I love the fact that the United States has been an innovative leader. I love the fact that the State of Washington has been an innovative leader. If there is one thing I pride myself on, it is representing a State that has continued to pioneer new technology and innovations. So when I look at this patent bill, I look at whether we are going to help the process of making innovation happen at a faster rate or more products and services to help us in all of those industries I just mentioned or whether we are going to gum up the wheels of the patent process. So, yes, I joined my colleagues who have been out here on the Senate floor, such as Senator Feinstein and others who debated this issue of changing our patent system to the ``first to file,'' which will disadvantage inventors because ``first to file'' will lead to big companies and organizations getting the ability to have patents and to slow down innovation. If you look at what Canada and Europe have done, I don't think anybody in the world market today says: Oh, my gosh, let's change to the Canadian system because they have created incredible innovation or let's look to Europe because their ``first to file'' has created such innovation. In fact, when Canada switched to this ``first to file'' system, that actually slowed down the number of patents filed. So I have that concern about this legislation. But we have had that discussion here on the Senate floor. I know my colleague is going to come to the floor and talk about fee diversion, which reflects the fact that the Patent Office actually collects money on patents. That is a very viable way to make the Patent Office effective and efficient because it can take the money it collects from these patents and use it to help speed up the process of verifying these patents and awarding them. But the Senate chose good action on this issue, and good measure, and simply said that the money collected by the Patent Office should stay in the Patent Office budget. But that is not what the House has done. The House has allowed that money to be diverted into other areas of appropriations, and the consequence will be that this patent reform bill will basically be taking the economic engine away from the Patent Office and spreading it out across government. So the reform that we would seek in patents, to make it a more expeditious process, is also going to get down. I could spend my time here today talking about those two things and my concerns about them, but that is not even why I am here this morning. I am here to talk about how this legislation has a rifleshot earmark in it for a specific industry, to try to curtail the validation of a patent by a particular company. That is right, it is an earmark rifleshot to try to say that banks no longer have to pay a royalty to a particular company that has been awarded a patent and that has been upheld in court decisions to continue to be paid that royalty. That is why I am here this morning. You would say she is objecting to that earmark, she is objecting to that personal approach to that particular industry giveaway in this bill. Actually, I am concerned about that, but what I am concerned about is, given the way they have drafted this language to benefit the big banks of America and screw a little innovator, this is basically drafted so broadly that I am worried that other technology companies are going to get swept up in the definition and their patents are also going to be thrown out as invalid. That is right. Every State in the United States could have a company that, under this language, could now have someone determine that their patent is no longer viable even though the Patent Office has awarded them a patent. Companies that have revenue streams from royalties that are operating their companies could now have their bank financing, everything pulled out from under them because they no longer have royalty streams. Businesses could lay off people, businesses could shut down, all because we put in broad language in the House version that exacerbates a problem that was in the Senate version to begin with. Now I could say this is all a process and legislation follows a process, but I object to this process. I object to this language that benefits the big banks but was never debated in the committee of jurisdiction, the Judiciary Committee. It was not debated. It was not voted on. It was not discussed there. It was put into the managers' amendment which was brought to the Senate floor with little or no debate because people wanted to hurry and get the managers' amendment adopted. Now, I objected to that process in driving this language because I was concerned about it. I sought colloquy at that point in time and was not able to get one from any of my colleagues, and I so opposed this legislation. Well, now this legislation has been made even worse in the House of Representatives by saying that this language, which would nullify patents--that is right. The Senate would be participating in nullifying patents that the Patent Office has already given to companies, and it can now go on for 8 years--8 years is what the language says when it comes back from the House of Representatives. All I am asking my colleagues to do today is go back to the Senate language they passed. Go back to the Senate language that at least says this earmark they are giving to the big banks so they can invalidate a patent by a company because they don't like the fact they have to pay a royalty on check imaging processing to them--I am sorry you don't like to pay the royalty. But when somebody innovates and makes the technology, they have the right to charge a royalty. You have been paying that royalty. I am sorry, big banks, if you don't like paying that royalty anymore. You are making a lot of money. Trying to come to the Senate with an earmark rifle shot to X out that competition because you don't want to pay for that technology--that is not the way the Senate should be operating. The fact that the language is so broad that it will encompass other technologies is what has me concerned. If all my colleagues want to vote for this special favor for the big banks, go ahead. The fact that my colleagues are going to basically pull us in to having other companies covered under this is a big concern. The section I am concerned about is business method patents, and the term ``covered business method patent'' means patents or claims or method or corresponding apparatus for performing data processing or other operations. What does ``or other operations'' mean? How many companies in America will have their patents challenged because we don't know what ``or other operations'' means? How many? How many inventors will have their technology basically found null and void by the court process or the Patent Office process because of this confusing language? I am here to ask my colleagues to do a simple thing: revert to the Senate language. It is not a perfect solution. If I had my way, I would strip the language altogether. If I had my way, I would have much more clarity and predictability to patent lawyers and the Patent Office so the next 3 or 4 years will not be spent in chaos between this change in the patent business method language and the whole process that is going to go on. Instead, we would be moving forward with predictability and certainty. I ask my colleagues to just help this process. Help this process move forward by going back to the Senate language. I know my colleagues probably want to hurry and get this process done, but I guarantee this language with the Senate version could easily go back to the House of Representatives and be passed. What I ask my colleagues to think about is how many companies are also going to get caught in this process by the desire of some to help the big banks get out from under something the courts have already said they don't deserve to get out of. I hope we can bring closure to this issue, and I hope we can move forward on something that gives Americans the idea that people in Washington, DC, are standing up for the little guy. We are standing up for inventors. We are standing up for those kinds of entrepreneurs, and we are not spending our time putting earmark rifle shot language into legislation to try to assuage large entities that are well on their way to taking care of themselves. I hope if my colleagues have any questions on this language as it relates to their individual States, they would contact our office and we would be happy to share information with them. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.