Maria Cantwell

Ms. CANTWELL

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.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 HELP Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 353 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Ms. CANTWELL. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and any statement related to the resolution be printed in the Record.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, at 2:30 p.m. tomorrow the Senate will proceed to a series of three rollcall votes. The votes will be on the confirmation of the nomination of David Hamilton to be a U.S. circuit judge for the Seventh Circuit; in relation to the Coburn amendment No. 2785, relating to spending priorities; and passage of S. 1963, the Caregivers and Veterans Omnibus Health Services Act, as amended, if amended. Finally, I ask unanimous consent that following the remarks of Senator Sessions, Senator Harkin, and Senator Alexander, the Senate adjourn under the previous order.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m. tomorrow, Thursday, November 19; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate proceed to a period of morning business for 1 hour, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each, with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with the majority controlling the first half and the Republicans controlling the final half; that following morning business, the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 190, S. 1963, the Caregivers and Veterans Omnibus Health Services Act Of 2009, as provided for under the previous order.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that on Thursday, November 19, following the period of morning business, the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 190, S. 1963, and that the bill be considered under the provisions of the order of November 17; further, that upon disposition of the Hamilton nomination and the Senate resuming legislative session, there be 2 minutes of debate prior to a vote in relation to the Coburn amendment, No. 2785; that upon the use of that time, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the amendment; that upon disposition of the amendment, the Senate then proceed to passage as provided under the order of November 17.

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, as in executive session, I ask unanimous consent that on Thursday, November 19, at 2 p.m., all postcloture time be yielded back, except for 30 minutes, and that the time be equally divided and controlled by Senators Leahy and Sessions or their designees; that at 2:30 p.m., the Senate proceed to vote on confirmation of the nomination of Judge Hamilton; that upon confirmation, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, no further motions be in order, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then resume legislative session.

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

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I come to the floor to join my colleagues to talk about the rising cost of health care on small businesses. I thank the chair of the Small Business Committee, Senator Landrieu, from Louisiana. She has been an outspoken and articulate advocate for small business. She is constantly focusing on what we are going to do to help small businesses in America, and she wants to make sure any health care legislation that is passed out of the Senate focuses on that. That is very important because we know that when we talk about small businesses in this current environment, they are at a disadvantage when it comes to our health care system. That is to say they have long been the backbone of the American economy. Small businesses employ about 40 percent of our workforce. Even in a downturn, the job creation we are going to see is going to come from small businesses. If we can address their concerns in health care reform about the rising cost of health care, then we are going to be doing ourselves a favor because they are going to be able to grow more jobs and grow the economy. I applaud the Senator from Louisiana for her efforts and join with my colleagues, Senators Warner, Udall, and Shaheen, in coming down here to describe why we think it is so important that we get health care reform and that we do something about this because we really do want to get our economy going, and we certainly want to control costs so that small businesses can grow jobs. Why is this so important? We have seen a 120-percent increase in premiums over the last 10 years. That is to say, from 1999 to 2009, insurance premiums have increased 120 percent--120 percent. What family in America can sustain the constant increase in insurance premiums every year? The fact is, they cannot. In my State, we have seen a sharp rise in those who are without health insurance because the premiums keep going up. More and more small businesses have to make choices between keeping employees on the rolls or cutting back on their health insurance. And they are making those choices. It puts all of us at a disadvantage. What should we be doing instead about the rising costs of premiums in health care? We should be doing something to bend the cost curve. You will hear many of my colleagues, as you did this morning, talk about bending the cost curve and why it is so important. Right now, if we look at what is happening with health insurance, as I said, it already increased 120 percent over 10 years. The next 10-year period, it is supposed to increase in the same way, double in cost, increase about 7.9 to 8 percent a year. So that means if we do nothing, small businesses are going to continue to see this escalator of costs keep going up for, and that means they are going to employ fewer and fewer people because they cannot afford the health care coverage. We see that general inflation is about 2 percent, but this increase in premiums is about, as I said, 7 to 8 percent. Why are we seeing this huge increase in the cost of premiums if general inflation is only about 2 percent? This, in my opinion, is what the health care debate should be about. This difference between general inflation and health care cost increases should be the entire debate. What are we going to do to drive down the costs so that health care costs are kept more in pace with inflation? Why are these statistics so important? The issue is that, according to the National Small Business Association, only 38 percent of small businesses provided health insurance last year. That is down 61 percent from 1993. So we are continuing to see that shrinkage in people offering coverage. Of those who do offer coverage, 72 percent say they are struggling to continue to offer coverage to their employees. An MIT study shows that the cost of health care to small business will more than double in the next 10 years, just as it has in the last 10 years, and that small businesses pay up to 18 percent more than the same coverage for larger firms. What that means is small businesses are being disadvantaged. They are being disadvantaged because they do not have the same clout in the marketplace as a large employer to negotiate benefits and drive down costs. What do we want to do about that? What we want to do is give small businesses the same kind of negotiating power large companies have to negotiate for benefits. In fact, health care reform and helping small businesses should be able to negotiate with insurance companies to drive down the costs of their plans. This is something that is already part of the underlying bill we passed out of the Finance Committee. I am sure that when we see legislation coming to the Senate floor this Friday, we will see the same kind of provision, at least with the basic health plan, a provision I helped coauthor in the legislation that would allow States to negotiate on behalf of the uninsured, allowing those who are employed in small businesses to help lower the costs. In our State, this plan has driven costs down 30 to 40 percent lower than what those individuals would be able to get in an individual market. That is amazing, the fact that they have been able to pool together 40,000 to 60,000 people, go to the marketplace, and say to insurance providers: If you want access to our insurance business, you have to give us a discount. I call it the Costco model. I don't know how many people here this morning understand the Costco model, but the Costco model is something where you buy in bulk and you make large purchases. You should get a discount. That is what we are saying. We want to give small businesses the same kind of purchasing power large businesses have so they can drive down costs. That is going to be a critical component of this legislation, and this Senator, along with my colleagues who are out on the floor today, is going to make sure that negotiating power exists in a final bill for small business. Second, we need to make sure we also have provider reform, that provider payments reward not just volume but value. Right now in our health care delivery system, there is a lot of focus given to what I would say is the quantity of health care that is delivered, the fee- for-service system that basically ends up having insurers paying physicians for the number of patients they have seen or the number of tests they have ordered but is not generated or focused on payment to a physician based on the outcome of the patient. There are provider reforms in this legislation that will also help drive down the cost to small businesses because those providers will be focusing on what it takes to deliver health care to those individuals. Third, we need to have better transparency on drug pricing because transparency of cost is something that will help us in negotiating, as a government purchaser, better health care benefits. Right now, there is a lot of unknown about health care costs in drug pricing because middlemen basically negotiate discounts on behalf of their customers but end up pocketing some of those benefits. We want to make sure all three of these points are part of vital legislation to help drive down the cost for small businesses. I have many small businesses come into my office. I met with some in the State of Washington. We are very proud of the diverse array of companies that exist in our State. A lot of people look at some of the major employers such as Boeing or Microsoft or, as I mentioned, Costco, Starbucks. Washington State is home to many entrepreneurs. There are many great companies that may be the big companies of the future but are the small businesses today, and they need our help and assistance. Two of those, Kent and Linda Davis, run a technology consulting firm and pay $1,500 per month for health insurance--$1,500 per month. They just learned that in 2010 their premiums will increase by another $300 per month. This is the third substantial increase they have had in a row. They want to hire more employees, but they cannot because of the cost of health care. Another successful entrepreneur who has come into my office, Gene Otto, is the owner of the San Francisco Street Bakery. You might think the San Francisco Street Bakery is in San Francisco, but it is actually in Olympia, WA, and it employs 20 people. Over the past decade, the increases in health insurance premiums have forced them to take dramatic reductions in the level of benefits and the number of employees they can cover. This is a company that wants to grow. They want to expand. They have great products and great services. It is people such as the Davises and Gene Otto who are the economic engine of our economy. They are going to continue to depend on us to make sure that in this legislation and in this legislative debate, we are going to do everything we can to help small businesses grow. Small businesses cannot grow if health care costs are going to rise 8 to 10 percent a year. It will hamper the ability of those small businesses to meet the demands and challenges of their workforce and keep them healthy, facing an economy that has been certainly challenged by this big downturn we have seen but that needs to go back to growth in the future. They want to be part of that. They want to be part of that growth, and they want to be part of helping our economy recover. But to do that, we are going to have to do something to control health care costs. I applaud my colleagues who I know share these same issues and concerns: the Senator from Virginia, who has been very outspoken on the fact that we have to change our system to make sure we are bending the cost curve and focusing on driving down costs with provider reforms; my colleague from Louisiana, who is focused on making sure small businesses have clout and access to small business negotiations that large companies have; my colleague Senator Shaheen, who also has been a big supporter of making sure we have provider reform in the system; and Senator Udall, who comes from a State that knows health care costs are a key component. If we want our economy to grow, we have to drive down health care costs. Two of our former colleagues have been on the floor in the last few minutes--the Vice President of the United States and the Secretary of Interior. We are glad they have come up to Capitol Hill to continue discussions with us about how important this legislation is. I thank them for that. I thank them for their service to our country and for their willingness to serve in the administration. We certainly miss them in the Senate. But I think it emphasizes the urgency of the health care legislation, that our economy is struggling, that we want it to grow, that we think small businesses are going to be a key component of that, but we have to give them negotiating power. We have to give them the ability to negotiate with insurance plans to drive down the costs, and we have to do better at reforming the system so we can see that growth happen in America. I yield the floor.

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 for up to 10 minutes each.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Commodities Market Manipulation Prevention Act of 2009. When bad-actors like Enron and Amaranth Advisors, LLC, manipulate commodities prices, it means that Americans pay more for commodities like oil, gasoline, heating oil, food, and natural gas. Unfortunately, current law does not protect our economy with a tough enough standard to prevent, deter, and enforce illegal market manipulation in critical commodity futures markets. Current law makes it very difficult for the Commodities Futures Trading Commission to prosecute market manipulation cases. This is because current law requires the CFTC to meet a more rigorous standard to prove market manipulation than other financial market regulatory agencies such as the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and the Federal Trade Commission. Specifically, the Commodities Exchange Act requires the CFTC to prove ``specific intent'' to manipulate. That is a very difficult standard to reach. You would have to have a pretty dumb individual to, for example, write in an e-mail that you specifically intend to manipulate prices. But that's what current law currently requires the CFTC to prove. In addition, CFTC case law also requires that it prove an artificial price exists, that the defendant had market power to move the price, and that he or she actually did cause the artificial price. Particularly in today's complex markets, proving ``artificial price'' can be a daunting task, which more often than not comes down to a ``battle of the experts'' in court. Because these requirements are so onerous, the CFTC often ends up moving to a lesser charge of ``attempted manipulation,'' which requires only proving intent and some act showing that intent. This is still a high standard, but is much easier than proving a full manipulation case. As a result, Federal courts have recognized that, with the CFTC's weaker anti-manipulation standard, market ``manipulation cases generally have not fared well.'' In fact, the standard is so weak that in the CFTC's 35-year history, it has only successfully prosecuted and won one single case of manipulation. That case is currently on appeal in Federal court. The Securities and Exchange Commission, on the other hand, under section 10(b) of the Securities and Exchange of 1934, has a different, easier-to-prove manipulation standard that it has employed successfully for over 75 years. Basically, the SEC does not need to prove specific intent, as the CFTC does. The SEC just has to prove that the defendant acted ``recklessly.'' This legislation would give the CFTC the same anti-manipulation standard currently employed by the SEC. This means that the CFTC would be empowered to prove a manipulation case under the same ``reckless conduct'' standard that the SEC, FERC, and FTC employ, in contrast to its current difficult-to-prove ``specific intent'' standard. That is, this legislation will repeal the affirmative rule that says you are allowed to act recklessly in the commodity futures markets as long as you have no specific intent to do harm. Congress also recently granted this same authority to the FERC in 2005 and the FTC in 2007 in legislation I wrote that carefully tracked section 10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 to ensure the FERC and FTC would interpret and enforce their new market manipulation authorities consistent with the SEC. This legislation also carefully tracks section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in part because Federal case law is clear that when the Congress uses language identical to that used in another statute, Congress intended for the courts and the Commission to interpret the new authority in a similar manner. In the words of the Supreme Court from the 1904 case of Kepner v. United States, ``when a statute uses words whose meaning under the judicial decisions has become well-known and well-settled, it will be presumed that the Legislature used such words in the sense justified by long judicial sanction.'' In the 75 years since the enactment of the Securities and Exchange Act 1934, a substantial body of case law has developed over the last half century around section 10(b). This will provide certainty in how this legislation will be interpreted and applied by the Courts and the CFTC. In fact, the Supreme Court has compared this body of law to ``a judicial oak which has grown from little more than a legislative acorn.'' So it's worth noting that courts have held that the SEC's manipulation authority is not intended to catch sellers who take advantage of the natural market forces of supply and demand; only those who attempt to affect the market or prices by artificial means unrelated to the natural forces of supply and demand. In this country, our current standard in the futures arena just isn't working. It is not sufficient to fully prosecute and deter abuses in the markets. We need to get the right standard to prevent, deter, and enforce market manipulation in these markets. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, I rise to talk about the health care reform bill and the most urgent need to make sure we have provider reform as part of the insurance reform package. I thank the Senator from Minnesota for her leadership on this issue. She has hit the ground running when it comes to the issue of health care reform, advocating for changes in policy and introducing legislation at the beginning of this year called the value index legislation. I am proud to be a sponsor of that legislation and proud we have worked together so diligently to try to communicate why this is so important for America. Clearly, Minnesota has had good results and is leading our country in the kinds of health care practices we need to adopt. Senator Klobuchar has been able to put that into legislation and to champion that legislation and to work on the floor organizing colleagues from like States to communicate this issue. I am happy to be joining her in the letter we are sending to our Senate leadership and to the President of 1the United States talking about why it is so important to get these reforms adopted. So I thank her for being out here this evening to communicate this important public policy area, and, again, for having Minnesota be front and center in this debate. What we are trying to address is an urgent problem; that is, the Medicare system, basically--if we do nothing--is going to go broke. It is doubling in its cost to the Federal Government. We are talking about reform. We are talking about adding more people. So if we look at Medicare spending and where we are today and the amount we are going to see in the future, we know we are quickly growing that number--from 2009 to 2015--to be over $1.2 trillion. So the cost of this--of Medicare doubling over 10 years--is something we know as a country we cannot sustain. Without health care reform--without even the discussion of adding the uninsured--we know we cannot sustain the doubling of Medicare in the next 10 years. So we need to change the system. We know what the cause of this crisis is, too. There are many elements to health care and health care costs, but we know from the many hearings and testimony we have had from experts that the fee-for- service system is driving up the cost of health care. Fee for service rewards providers for the quantity of services they provide without regard to whether those services benefit the patient. I ask my colleagues if they have ever experienced this situation I am about to describe because I know many Americans will tell you this is exactly what they have experienced. Have you ever asked yourself why your physician, while you are in the middle of a health care appointment, seems so hurried? Have you ever asked yourself why the doctor seems so hurried to go to the next appointment? Well, the reason is because that is the way we pay doctors. We pay doctors by the number of patients they see and the number of procedures they order. So the system we have today actually creates an incentive for doctors to spend as little time with each patient as possible. If we think about that, if we think about where our health care system is today, how is that good for delivering outcomes? How is that good for making sure the patient gets the best care? I want to make sure I am clear. This is not the fault of the doctors. They are just following the rules of the game as it is being played today. Indeed, many physician organizations are advocating the changes in organizational structure that the Senator from Minnesota and I are advocating. They understand it is a daunting task to reform health care. But in this case, they know the problem is simple enough to grasp. All we have to do is follow the money, and what we see in both private insurance and Medicare is that we are routinely paying for duplicative or inefficient care. Then the cost of Medicare and the cost eventually to taxpayers skyrockets. So if we look at the fee-for-service model, it is pretty clear. It is a feedback loop. In business, in technology we call this a positive feedback loop because it just feeds each other because we have more use, we order more tests, we have more duplication of services, and we have more spending, and the cycle just keeps going and it keeps perpetrating itself. The end result is, we just keep adding costs to our system. Nowhere is there an outcome that is judged here, nor is there a value to the patient. It is a fee for service that just generates more spending. We cannot emphasize that enough because the current system promotes an overutilization of what are scarce health care dollars and resources. As one national study shows, there is an estimated $700 billion a year in wasted health care dollars. That is health care spending that may not even be--certainly it is wasted dollars. Some people have said it can even do harm in the way the money is spent. So we are out here today advocating for a different model. We are out here saying it is good to talk about insurance reform, but if Medicare is one in every five health care dollars and Medicare is driving health care spending, it is also driving expensive health insurance. So if we have expensive fee-for-service Medicare that is helping to waste precious Medicare dollars, you bet it is also driving expensive health insurance. The good news is, we already know there is a viable alternative. The reason we know that is because we know there are States such as Washington and Minnesota and many others across the country that have put some of these new practices into place. We know they are working in the real world. In some parts of the country, we have reforms that have reversed these trends and they have cut costs and they have put the emphasis where it belongs. The bottom line is, they put the patient first. Imagine that: putting the patient first--not the number of procedures ordered, not the number of people seen, but putting the patient first by making sure we are focusing on their outcomes. These States and parts of the country have done this by organizing a delivery of care system so the doctors can take the time with their patients, and they can take the lead in coordinating their care. Patients in these delivery systems get better access to their physicians, they experience shorter waiting times, they benefit from coordinated care that is provided by their primary care physician and other health care individuals, and the health care outcomes are better. In fact, if we look at some of these States, and we look at some of the individual criteria, who in America would not like shorter waiting times to get to see the health care provider they need to see or better access to doctors or to have one doctor coordinate with their other health care providers their specific needs and treatments and to guarantee better outcomes? On this chart is data from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation from 2008 of what we get when we put a coordinated care delivery system in place and we integrate the care of the individual in the delivery system. So this kind of delivery system is good for individuals, but it is also good for the taxpayer because not only does the patient benefit, we cut down on the bureaucracy and that $700 billion of wasteful spending I talked about a few minutes ago. So I believe every part of the country ought to take heed of this phenomenal result and the fact that, as my colleague from Minnesota said, we could save the taxpayers over $100 billion a year if we made this change to coordinated care across the country. When Medicare is structured in a way that it encourages better quality and more efficient care, we will also see the price in private insurance go down as well because the cost of correlation of Medicare driving private insurance is there. So my colleagues who come from States that have more expensive Medicare might think that is somewhat of a benefit, but I guarantee it is also driving more expensive private insurance and your citizens are not getting the best care. This Robert Wood Johnson Foundation study proves that. If we were looking at other States, all these checkmarks on the cost and utilization would be high. So we know the health care debate puts us at a crossroads. It puts us at a crossroads about what we are going to do about our current health care system. We can either fix these problems or we can exacerbate it and make it worse. We all want to help the uninsured in America, but to add more people to this health care system, to cover more people under health care without changing the way we pay for Medicare is going to explode the Federal deficit. So we want to make sure we don't exacerbate this problem. As the Senator from Minnesota said, her home State has implemented these things. So has Washington State. We know that where health care costs are managed efficiently, we are producing great results. But we know the gap between these reimbursement rates in other areas of the country is still leaving us with inefficient delivery systems, and we know that for our States, we are delivering efficient care. If you continue to have inefficient systems in other parts of the country that pay more but are less efficient and don't deliver patients better care, you are going to continue to have health care practitioners migrate to those areas. That is why fixing the health care system but not addressing this issue is not a real solution for us because we cannot continue to see people from Washington and Minnesota and other places migrate to high-cost, high-paid doctor States, with no guaranteeing of better outcomes but certainly more pay for physicians. We know the fee-for-service model is bleeding our country, and we know we need to make changes to that. We need to have a quality care system. So that is why I joined Senator Klobuchar at the beginning of the year in introducing legislation for a value index and that is why we have been fighting in the Finance Committee to add these kinds of reforms to the system. I am very proud the Finance Committee is looking at insurance reform, to ban practices such as excluding individuals just because they have a preexisting condition, but provider reform in how Medicare is delivered is as crucial to delivering a good health care system in America. We are advocating that we have a health care system that puts the patient first, that puts them in the focus of how physicians get paid. We do this specifically by striking a blow against fee for service and replacing it with a model that allows physicians to spend more time with their patients, to better coordinate their care, to provide them with preventive care for the future, and to make sure they are getting the quality of care they deserve. As one of my constituents came into my office to talk about this said: I don't want to be medicated, I want to be cured. What she meant is don't just write me a prescription and tell me to go away; I want you to focus on my specific health care needs. That is what so many people think about our health care system. At a time when we do have advances in new technologies and preventive care and wellness, that can get our consumers focusing on their own health care needs. So our proposal changes the current payment incentive structure by using a new value index to measure the quality and efficiency of service. And only by replacing the fee-for-service system with this new value index will we start to control health care costs. According to testimony before the Senate Finance Committee, this is where we are going to get our biggest savings in health care cost reduction. The fee-for-service system, as one of the witnesses said, is the most broken part of Medicare. Under the value index system that we are proposing, the Federal Government would do much better and taxpayers would do much better in making sure we do not see that doubling of Medicare rates. That is why my colleagues and I are sending a letter--and I see my colleague from Washington on the floor, Senator Murray, who several years ago introduced the MediFair legislation; legislation that said we have to have fairness in the way Medicare dollars are spent around the country. We can't continue to incent areas of good practice while we are warning areas of inefficient care, and she has been a champion behind this issue for many years. So I appreciate her being on the floor because I know she cares passionately about this issue as well. I guess that is the point. Those of us who are from these regions are tired of providing efficient, coordinated care and not--I think the Presiding Officer is from one of those States. You can't believe the frustration we have of going to community after community, knowing we provide better outcomes, knowing we provide better care, knowing people have made it work on the lowest margins possible. Yet people are leaving our States because they can go make a better buck somewhere else off the inefficient health care system we are delivering. It would be one thing if they could make that quicker buck by going to some State and they were saying: You know what. We are more expensive, but we deliver more care. That is not what the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation says. It says they don't deliver better care. If you can imagine, if you have that fee-for-service model, where you are spending more and ordering more and out of time and so you order all that, how are you getting the best outcomes? You are throwing a lot of money at it, but you are not focusing on what is the real quality of care to deliver to that patient. I know my colleagues on the Finance Committee are trying to focus on health care reforms for the overall system. There are various proposals that I am sure we will see tomorrow as this draft legislation comes out talking about value-based reforms for hospitals and pilot programs for certain regions and accountable care organizations which can help, in the long run, drive down costs by having global health care budgets. But I would say to my colleagues we cannot just have tweaks to this system. We can't just have pilot programs. We can't just gently turn the wheel of the Titanic and think it is going to avoid the catastrophe we are going to see if we don't reform Medicare. So we will be working hard in the next couple weeks. As I said, we are sending a letter to the President and to the leadership here that it is time to fix this system; that we have the opportunity to have a 21st century health care delivery system, with all the great information and all the great technology that is out there, but this system can't keep rewarding insurance companies by 435 percent annual profits just because our whole system is set up to order more. Because this isn't about paying for volume. The point is not to pay for volume; it is to pay for value. We want to make sure we are paying for that value and not just the fee-for-service volume system that currently doesn't put patients first in America. So we will be working hard to get these implemented so we can support this health care legislation. I thank the President and I yield the floor.

Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for up to 15 minutes.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Asia- Pacific Economic Cooperation, APEC, Business Travel Cards Act of 2009. This bill would authorize the Secretary of Homeland Security and State Department to issue APEC Business Travel Cards, ABTC's, to business leaders from APEC countries and senior government officials who are actively engaged in APEC business. The ABTC program has 18 nations participating, including China, Japan and Australia, which are among the world's larger economies. The United States currently recognizes foreign issued ABTC travel cards. Cardholders from non-Visa Waiver Program countries need to present valid passports and those from other countries must still obtain U.S. visas as required by United States law. However, ABTC card holders are allowed to benefit from expedited visa interview scheduling at U.S. embassies and consulates, and expedited immigration processing through airline crew and diplomat immigration lanes upon arrival at U.S. international airports. However, under current law U.S. passport holders are not yet eligible to apply for the ABTC program and therefore do not enjoy these same benefits in Asia-Pacific countries. This bill would require the Secretary of Homeland Security to issue ABTCs to United States citizen business leaders and senior government officials actively engaged in APEC business no later than January 1, 2010. I support the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Business Travel Cards Act because I have long supported increased free trade with the Asia- Pacific region. International business travel is an essential part of selling goods and services around the world. The 21 member economies of APEC together account for around 53 percent of world GDP and approximately 48 percent of global trade. This bill would help facilitate international cooperation and trade by allowing business leaders within the participating countries to enter countries on an expedited basis for the length of the program, currently three years. The success of the program has been shown by the amount of applications for travel cards since inception of the program in 1997. From 1997, applications received by participating countries have grown by more than 100 percent each year. By March of last year, there were more than 34,000 cards being used by APEC countries. The Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Business Travel Cards Act of 2009 will help facilitate global trade within the Asia-Pacific, and create expanded export opportunities for U.S. businesses. Working to grow U.S. exports will get our economy to grow again and create and maintain U.S. jobs. 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 with great pride to express my support for the confirmation of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to be Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Today, the Senate is on the verge of a historic decision in confirming Judge Sotomayor. She brings a wealth of experience to this lifetime appointment, with 17 years of service on the judicial bench--more than any member of the current court. She has served as a prosecutor, a trial judge, an appellate judge and has also worked as an attorney in the private sector. In fact, with the retirement of Justice David Souter and the confirmation of Judge Sotomayor, she will become the only justice on the current Supreme Court with experience as a trial judge. This experience gives her a perspective that will be a much-needed addition to the Court. If we confirm her today--and I am confident we will--Judge Sotomayor will become the nation's first Hispanic in history to sit on the highest court in the land, and only the third female Justice. Women, Latinos and Latinas--indeed all Americans--can join in celebrating these significant milestones. Judge Sotomayor embodies the progress our country has achieved, and yet I know she would agree with me that there is much more to be done. According to the American Bar Association, women comprise 47 percent of all law students, as compared to 1947, when women made up 3 percent of law students. That is significant progress. I firmly believe that for Hispanics, Judge Sotomayor's appointment will mark the beginning of a new era of steady progress. According to the U.S. Department of Labor, today only about 4 percent of lawyers and 3 percent of judges are of Hispanic descent. Judge Sotomayor will serve as an able Associate Justice. She will also serve as a tremendous role model for law students and other young people thinking about entering the legal profession and for those who aspire to become judges. Her confirmation and service on the U.S. Supreme Court will serve to accelerate progress into the future. Like election of the president who appointed her, Judge Sotomayor's confirmation says to young people of all incomes and backgrounds: You can be anything you want to be. All of us have been moved by Judge Sotomayor's personal story--of her upbringing in the Bronx by a working mother, and her rise from those humble beginnings to graduate in one of Princeton University's first classes to include women. From there she went on to Yale Law School, where she excelled, and then to a coveted post--one of the few held by women--in the Office of the Manhattan District Attorney. With her record of solid experience, clearly Judge Sotomayor is ready to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court. In rating Judge Sotomayor, the American Bar Association conducted confidential interviews with a large number of judges and litigants who have worked with her or argued cases in her court. The ABA unanimously found Judge Sonia Sotomayor to be ``well qualified,'' the highest rating the association can give a judicial nominee. Judge Sotomayor has received support from Democrats and Republicans, law enforcement groups and civil rights organizations. Among these groups are the Association of Prosecuting Attorneys, International Association of Chiefs of Police, National Fraternal Order of Police, Major Cities Chiefs Association, Women's Legal Defense and Education Fund, and the NAACP. I agree with the Hispanic National Bar Association, which said that Judge Sotomayor ``embodies all the qualities required for service as a Justice and are confident that, when confirmed, she will render fair and impartial justice for all Americans.'' The National Association of Women Lawyers has noted that Judge Sotomayor's record, ``establishes her lack of gender, racial, ethnic or religious bias and her willingness to maintain and open mind, deciding cases on the record before her.'' Throughout her 17 years on the bench, Judge Sotomayor has shown a respect for established precedent and deference to the role of the elected branches of government. She made this point clear in the meeting I had with her shortly after President Obama nominated her for the post. The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, CRS, stated that ``perhaps the most consistent characteristic of Judge Sotomayor's approach as an appellate judge has been an adherence to'' existing judicial precedent. In her meeting with me and in testimony before the Judiciary Committee, Judge Sotomayor repeatedly acknowledged the right to privacy is enshrined in our Constitution. I believe she will preserve that right. President Obama made a wise choice in selecting Judge Sotomayor to serve on our highest court. She has demonstrated her integrity and intellect throughout the thorough confirmation process. Having followed her confirmation hearings closely, I am confident that Judge Sotomayor not only has a deep understanding of the law and great respect for precedent. I am confident she will make a fine associate justice.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleague, Senator Grassley, and introduce an important piece of legislation that will modernize the tax incentive for domestic biodiesel production. The Biodiesel Tax Incentive Reform and Extension Act of 2009 will provide predictability to investors, to producers, and to researchers so we can move forward and continue to displace imported fossil fuels with low carbon, renewable biodiesel that is produced here in the United States. Last year, we all saw the devastating effects that $140 per barrel oil had on our economy and our constituents. For economic reasons, national security reasons, and environmental reasons, we cannot allow ourselves to remain dependent on foreign oil. We have to redouble our efforts to deploy alternative fuels that can be produced in the United States and that can help us address the growing crisis of climate change. Biodiesel is a diesel replacement fuel that is produced from vegetable oils, animal fats and waste oils. It is refined to meet a commercial fuel specification that is readily accepted in the marketplace. Typically biodiesel is blended with conventional diesel fuel, and it is not necessary to modify a vehicle's engine to use the fuel. There are compelling public policy benefits associated with the production and use of biodiesel. It is an extremely efficient fuel that can be produced domestically so we do not have to rely on imported fuel. Biodiesel creates 3.2 units of energy for every unit of fuel that is required to produce the fuel and the 690 million gallons of biodiesel produced in the U.S. in 2008 displaced 38.1 million barrels of petroleum. Replacing fossil fuel use with biodiesel also can play a constructive role in addressing the issue of climate change. When compared to conventional diesel fuel, pure biodiesel reduces direct carbon lifecycle emissions by 78 percent, which in 2008 was the equivalent of removing 980,000 passenger vehicles from the road. Congress first enacted a tax incentive for biodiesel in 2004 and since that time, this tax credit has helped encourage the production and use of this alternative fuel. U.S. production of biodiesel increased from 25 million gallons in 2004 to 690 million gallons last year, and the industry has built the commercial scale production capacity. There currently are 176 plants in operation with the capacity to produce more than 2.61 billion gallons of biodiesel. The 39 new plants that are either under construction or being expanded would add nearly 849.9 million gallons of production capacity. We have to be sure these plans for expansion go forward. Unfortunately, limited access to capital, uncertainty surrounding the Federal commitment to biodiesel, and the current state of the economy threaten to undermine the progress the U.S. biodiesel industry has made to build the production capacity and infrastructure needed to aggressively displace petroleum diesel fuel with renewable, low-carbon biodiesel. Right now, less than one-third of the industry's facilities are currently producing fuel. The 51,893 jobs that are currently supported by the U.S. biodiesel industry show there is real job growth potential in this industry. Much of that job growth and economic activity will happen in our rural communities who continue to be hard hit right now. The current law tax credit will expire at the end of this year and Congress must act or we will threaten the future of this promising domestic industry. The National Biodiesel Board estimates that if Congress does not provide some predictability to the industry, U.S. production will likely fall from 690 million gallons in 2008 to 300-350 million gallons in 2009. This could cost the U.S. economy more than 29,000 jobs. These are not jobs we can afford to lose. In addition to the looming expiration, the current structure of the tax credit has administrative problems and is subject to abuse that makes it difficult to ensure that that only qualified fuel benefits from the incentive. We owe it to taxpayers to make sure that we are getting the results we want from the tax incentives we enact so in addition to extending the tax credit we need to make the structural changes that Sen. Grassley and I are proposing today. The centerpiece of the bill is changing the incentive from a blender credit to a production tax credit so that we focus the benefits of the incentive on building the domestic production industry. Under current law, the credit was targeted at the blending of biodiesel with petroleum diesel. While this was helpful in getting us to the point we are now, it is time we move even farther in the direction of promoting the production of petroleum fuel alternatives. In addition, the legislation we are introducing today will simplify administration of the incentive for both taxpayers and the Internal Revenue Service, IRS, and will eliminate any remaining opportunity for abuse of the tax credit through schemes like ``splash and dash'' in which oil companies add a few drops of biodiesel to their petroleum diesel just to qualify for the tax credits. Under our bill, the $1 per gallon tax credit will be provided for the production of biodiesel, renewable diesel and aviation jet fuel that complies with established fuel standards and Clean Air Act requirements. For small producers, those with an annual production capacity of less than 60 million gallons, we increase the $1 to $1.10 for the first 15 million gallons of biodiesel produced. We simplify the definition of biodiesel so that we encourage production from any biomass-based feedstock or recycled oils and fats. Hopefully this will unleash even more research and commercialization of alternative fuel sources. The bill also simplifies the coordination between the income tax credit and the excise tax liability to, again, tighten up compliance and reduce administrative burdens on taxpayers. Most importantly, our bill would extend this tax credit for 5 years, giving needed financial predictability to the industry. I thank Senator Grassley for joining with me on this bill and look forward to working with our colleagues on the Finance Committee to adopt this worthwhile, commonsense proposal that is consistent with sound energy and sound tax policy. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, today I introduce the Longline Catcher Processor Subsector Single Cooperative Act. In Washington State, our history is based on a rich maritime tradition that contributes billions of dollars to the state's economy each year. There are 3,000 vessels in Washington's fishing fleet that employ 10,000 fishermen. Seafood processors employ another 3,800 Washingtonians. And fish wholesalers employ an additional 1,000 people. For many communities along this nation's coastlines, the economy literally ebbs and flows with the tide. It is important to remember that the ocean resources these communities depend on are a public trust and a resource to be both treasured and protected. As guardians of the ocean and its plentiful resources, it is necessary that we examine all issues of ``ownership'' with care, transparency, and fairness. The issue of fishery cooperatives has proved to be an issue that demands nothing less. In July of 2008, I chaired a hearing in the Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries and Coast Guard, examining the impact of fishery management regimes on fishing safety and conservation. Following that hearing and numerous meetings with stakeholders to discuss the policy, safety, economic, and environmental implications of fishing cooperatives, I am here today to introduce the Longline Catcher Processor Subsector Single Cooperative Act, legislation that would allow for the formation of a single fishing cooperative in the Pacific cod catcher processor fleet. Instead of fishermen racing against each other and the elements to catch as much as they can, this bill would allow the fishermen to bring some sanity back to their livelihoods. Under this legislation, the Pacific cod catcher processor fishery can allocate the catch among their members, putting an end to the very dangerous ``race for fish.'' The cooperative would empower commercial fishermen with the framework and incentives to police themselves while still preserving the crucial regulatory and oversight responsibilities of the federal government and the North Pacific Fishery Management Council. By adopting this bill, we can improve fishing safety in the Pacific cod catcher processor fishery by putting an end to the ``race for fish.'' Doing so would lessen the fishery's environmental footprint, and give these fishermen the financial certainty that has worked for others across this Nation. Fishing safety is a real concern that must be addressed at the federal level. In 2006, the Coast Guard reported that in the decade from 1994 to 2004, 1,398 fishing vessels were lost tragic--reminders of what can go wrong at sea. Most of these fishing-related fatalities occur in the North Pacific, where the fishermen from my home state of Washington make their living. The difficult waters equate to the highest casualty rates in the nation, and highest rates of fatality and injury among fisherman. But the North Pacific's rough waters are not the only factor these fishermen have to cope with. It is a tough business--tough for those who work the boats and those who make the business-end decisions. It's a business that is driven by incentives and dangerous conditions that work in tandem to place countless numbers of fishermen at risk. When things go wrong, it is usually because of failures at multiple levels. You see, it's not always about vessels. Nor is it all about inspections, safety equipment, or training. Fishing safety is closely related to how fisheries are managed and the very foundation fishing has come to be built upon: competition. Without legislation such as this, the fisheries will continue to operate on a foundation of destructive competition, or a ``race for fish.'' And this race for fish is a very dangerous race. According to Lieutenant Christopher Woodley, the former fishing Vessel Safety Coordinator of the 13th U.S. Coast Guard District based in Seattle: This race encourages fishermen to operate in all weather and sea conditions, to operate without rest, and encourages risk-taking behaviors. But we can change that. By instituting a cooperative style of fishery management through this legislation, we dramatically change the incentives. And by changing the incentives to put a new premium on safety, we can change the way people fish and hopefully prevent future tragedies at sea. Safety is not the only goal of this legislation. This legislation aims to make environmental and economic improvements to the process of fishing. By eliminating the ``race for fish,'' as I mentioned before, we effectively slow the pace of fishing meaning commercial fishermen can optimize onboard processing facilities. The result is an increase in the product recovery rate per pound of fish caught, meaning they can use more parts of the fish and make wiser and more efficient use of our precious ocean resources. A slower pace also decreases bycatch and promotes ownership of the fishery, which will facilitate a conservation mindset in the fishermen. We have once again shifted the incentive from reckless speed to doing things slower, better, smarter, and more environmentally conscious. Furthermore, the Longline Catcher Processor Subsector Fisheries Cooperative Act means greater job stability for the Pacific cod freezer longliner fleet's workers. When fishermen no longer race, the fishing season lasts longer. This means more stability and predictability for crew members, and eliminates the boom and bust cycle that often prevails today. I want to be clear that this bill is not yet a finished product. I welcome comments, suggestions, and criticisms to help make this bill good public policy for everyone involved. As we discuss issues like safety of our fisherman and environmental implications to our oceans, it's imperative that we commit to an open and transparent process that shines the light of accountability. Both in fisheries management, fishing safety, and those areas where the two intersect, transparency must be the rule. We owe it to our coastal communities, our fisherman, and the American public collectively as stewards of one of our greatest public resources--our oceans. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleagues Senators Vitter, Landrieu, Murray, and Martinez and introduce the American Shipping Reinvestment Act of 2009. This legislation will build on work Congress started in 2004 to strengthen the U.S. merchant marine, create needed jobs in U.S. ship building, and stimulate economic activity in our maritime sector. Since our Nation's founding, the maritime sector has been integral to U.S. national security and economic security. American companies own and operate both U.S. flag ships and a significant number of vessels under international registries. The U.S. flag fleets of these companies generally are built in the United States and are manned with U.S. seafarers. These U.S. flag fleets support not only the shipbuilding industrial base in this country and the pool of qualified seafarers, but they also create the shipping assets that are needed for military sealift in time of war or national emergency. Most people understand commercial shipping and understand that we maintain a fleet of ships for military purposes. What may not be as well known is that the international ships of some American-owned companies are part of what is called the effective U.S.-controlled fleet, EUSC fleet. The EUSC is the fleet of merchant vessels registered in certain foreign nations that are available for requisition, use, or charter by the U.S. Government in the event of war or national emergency. For example, U.S. flag commercial vessels and their American crews transported the majority of the cargo--more than 25 million measurement tons of cargo--in support of Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom during the period of 2002-2008. What people also may not know is that the EUSC fleet has been in decline for the past quarter century, largely because of U.S. tax policy. Following enactment of certain 1986 tax law changes, there was a precipitous decline in American-owned international shipping. To remain competitive, many American-owned shipping companies either became foreign companies or simply divested themselves of their foreign assets. A 2002 study commissioned by the Department of Defense and performed by professors at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology found that the EUSC fleet dropped by 38 percent in terms of numbers of ships and nearly 55 percent in terms of deadweight tonnage between 1986 and 2000. Perhaps more importantly, these declines have been largely experienced in militarily-useful vessel types. For example, the results of a 2002 DOD study found that if the EUSC fleet continues its present decline, DOD's ability to support U.S. military tanker requirements will diminish over time. Fortunately, Congress recognized this problem in 2004 and addressed it by enacting the tonnage tax regime as part of the American Jobs Creation Act. Our legislation today builds on that policy by correcting an oversight in the 2004 act that has continued to stymie the ability of U.S. shipbuilding companies to invest in new ships in the United States. We have very strong economic and national security reasons to support U.S. owned shipowning companies and to maintain a vibrant maritime industry in this country. We also have to continue to support needed changes in our tax code so that we provide operators of U.S. flag vessels in international trade the opportunity to be competitive with their tax-advantaged foreign competitors. Notwithstanding the significant competitive disadvantages between 1986 and 2004 for American companies operating international ships, there continues to be several U.S. owned shipping companies with foreign operations, and our legislation is directed as helping them sustain and grow their U.S. flag fleets and to maintain their EUSC fleets. This bill will help these companies make needed investment in the U.S. economy, and create jobs in a way that also will enhance national security. Specifically, The American Shipping Reinvestment Act of 2009 would repeal an outdated section of the Internal Revenue Code and allow U.S. shipping companies with foreign income earned prior to 1986 to reinvest it into the U.S. for the purpose of growing their U.S. flag operations. Congress first included foreign shipping income in Subpart F in 1975, which meant that all shipping income was taxable at the full U.S. corporate tax rate no matter whether it was invested abroad or in the United States. However, a temporary rule, applicable to foreign shipping income earned from 1975 to 1986, continued to allow for deferral in cases where this income was reinvested in qualifying shipping activities. Section 955 of the Internal Revenue Code provided that this income would be included in gross income, i.e., taxed, immediately under Subpart F in the event of any net decrease in qualified shipping investments. The American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 restored for shipping income the normal tax rule under which non-Subpart F income of foreign subsidiaries is not taxed by the United States until it is repatriated, generally as a dividend. In restoring the potential for deferral for certain shipping income, Congress in 2004 returned the treatment of shipping income to where it was prior to 1975. Unfortunately, Congress did not address the rules under IRC Section 955 that apply to income earned between 1975 and 1986, thus creating a situation that this income is permanently stranded offshore. Our bill would repeal IRC Section 955 and will allow these stranded assets to be reinvested in the United States under the favorable tax terms that were in effect for other companies and industries in 2004. Specifically, the legislation provides a one-time opportunity for American-owned shipping companies to bring foreign source income back into the United States at a discounted tax rate for the purpose of expanding and growing our domestic maritime industry. Without the commonsense change in our legislation, these old, stranded assets will never return to the United States and never be subject to U.S. taxation. The bill is guaranteed to create jobs for American workers with the funds being brought back into the U.S. economy--on the ships, in the shipyards building the ships, and in supporting businesses. The bill contains a provision that would recapture any tax benefits if a shipping company reduces its full-time U.S. employment levels. This bill also would enhance U.S. national security interests by supporting shipyards that are vital to our defense industrial base, by enabling new U.S. flag tanker capacity to transport our Nation's energy products, and by providing DOD with critical assets--manpower and ships--necessary to help sustain military sealift. The bill is strongly supported by maritime labor, shipyards, and ship owners and operators and can provide a boost to the U.S. maritime industry at a time when the U.S. is struggling to find its economic footing. The jobs created by this legislation are well-paying, long- term jobs in a crucial sector of our Nation's economy. I urge my colleagues to join me and my other original cosponsors in supporting this bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the U.S.-China Market Engagement and Export Promotion Act of 2009. For many small- and medium-sized businesses across this country, some of which are in my home State of Washington, getting access to the Chinese market proves difficult at best. However, to establish a foothold in the ever expanding Chinese market can prove pivotal in achieving financial success. China is a tremendous market for U.S. goods and services. According to the U.S.-China Business Council, despite the global economic downturn, 85 percent of congressional districts increased their exports to China in 2008. In addition, exports to China in almost every congressional district grew more than exports to anywhere else from 2000 to 2008. In 2008, U.S. total exports to China equaled $71.5 billion. During the same time, however, our imports from China equaled $337.8 billion. That means our trading balance with China in 2008 was a $266.3 billion deficit. This bill would help States establish export promotion offices in China and create a new China Market Advocate Program at U.S. Export Assistance Centers around the Nation. The bill also provides assistance to small businesses for China trade missions and authorizes grants for Chinese business education programs. I support this bill because of the enormous role that small businesses play in our economy. Small- and medium-sized businesses are a great potential engine of growth. Between 2004 and 2005, small businesses created 78.9 percent of the Nation's net new jobs, and with expanded export opportunities that number will be able to increase in the near future. Considering the huge impact that small- and medium- sized businesses have on our economy, I urge all my colleagues to support this bill and give the business owners the assistance they need to succeed in the Chinese export market. The U.S.-China Market Engagement and Promotion Act will build the infrastructure necessary to connect American small- and medium-sized businesses with export opportunities in China. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Asia- Pacific Economic Cooperation, APEC, Business Travel Cards Act of 2009. This bill would authorize the Secretary of Homeland Security and State Department to issue APEC Business Travel Cards, ABTC's, to business leaders from APEC countries and senior government officials who are actively engaged in APEC business. The ABTC program has 18 nations participating, including China, Japan and Australia, which are among the world's larger economies. The United States currently recognizes foreign issued ABTC travel cards. Cardholders from non-Visa Waiver Program countries need to present valid passports and those from other countries must still obtain U.S. visas as required by United States law. However, ABTC card holders are allowed to benefit from expedited visa interview scheduling at U.S. embassies and consulates, and expedited immigration processing through airline crew and diplomat immigration lanes upon arrival at U.S. international airports. However, under current law U.S. passport holders are not yet eligible to apply for the ABTC program and therefore do not enjoy these same benefits in Asia-Pacific countries. This bill would require the Secretary of Homeland Security to issue ABTCs to United States citizen business leaders and senior government officials actively engaged in APEC business no later than January 1, 2010. I support the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Business Travel Cards Act because I have long supported increased free trade with the Asia- Pacific region. International business travel is an essential part of selling goods and services around the world. The 21 member economies of APEC together account for around 53 percent of world GDP and approximately 48 percent of global trade. This bill would help facilitate international cooperation and trade by allowing business leaders within the participating countries to enter countries on an expedited basis for the length of the program, currently three years. The success of the program has been shown by the amount of applications for travel cards since inception of the program in 1997. From 1997, applications received by participating countries have grown by more than 100 percent each year. By March of last year, there were more than 34,000 cards being used by APEC countries. The Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Business Travel Cards Act of 2009 will help facilitate global trade within the Asia-Pacific, and create expanded export opportunities for U.S. businesses. Working to grow U.S. exports will get our economy to grow again and create and maintain U.S. jobs. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleague, Senator Grassley, and introduce an important piece of legislation that will modernize the tax incentive for domestic biodiesel production. The Biodiesel Tax Incentive Reform and Extension Act of 2009 will provide predictability to investors, to producers, and to researchers so we can move forward and continue to displace imported fossil fuels with low carbon, renewable biodiesel that is produced here in the United States. Last year, we all saw the devastating effects that $140 per barrel oil had on our economy and our constituents. For economic reasons, national security reasons, and environmental reasons, we cannot allow ourselves to remain dependent on foreign oil. We have to redouble our efforts to deploy alternative fuels that can be produced in the United States and that can help us address the growing crisis of climate change. Biodiesel is a diesel replacement fuel that is produced from vegetable oils, animal fats and waste oils. It is refined to meet a commercial fuel specification that is readily accepted in the marketplace. Typically biodiesel is blended with conventional diesel fuel, and it is not necessary to modify a vehicle's engine to use the fuel. There are compelling public policy benefits associated with the production and use of biodiesel. It is an extremely efficient fuel that can be produced domestically so we do not have to rely on imported fuel. Biodiesel creates 3.2 units of energy for every unit of fuel that is required to produce the fuel and the 690 million gallons of biodiesel produced in the U.S. in 2008 displaced 38.1 million barrels of petroleum. Replacing fossil fuel use with biodiesel also can play a constructive role in addressing the issue of climate change. When compared to conventional diesel fuel, pure biodiesel reduces direct carbon lifecycle emissions by 78 percent, which in 2008 was the equivalent of removing 980,000 passenger vehicles from the road. Congress first enacted a tax incentive for biodiesel in 2004 and since that time, this tax credit has helped encourage the production and use of this alternative fuel. U.S. production of biodiesel increased from 25 million gallons in 2004 to 690 million gallons last year, and the industry has built the commercial scale production capacity. There currently are 176 plants in operation with the capacity to produce more than 2.61 billion gallons of biodiesel. The 39 new plants that are either under construction or being expanded would add nearly 849.9 million gallons of production capacity. We have to be sure these plans for expansion go forward. Unfortunately, limited access to capital, uncertainty surrounding the Federal commitment to biodiesel, and the current state of the economy threaten to undermine the progress the U.S. biodiesel industry has made to build the production capacity and infrastructure needed to aggressively displace petroleum diesel fuel with renewable, low-carbon biodiesel. Right now, less than one-third of the industry's facilities are currently producing fuel. The 51,893 jobs that are currently supported by the U.S. biodiesel industry show there is real job growth potential in this industry. Much of that job growth and economic activity will happen in our rural communities who continue to be hard hit right now. The current law tax credit will expire at the end of this year and Congress must act or we will threaten the future of this promising domestic industry. The National Biodiesel Board estimates that if Congress does not provide some predictability to the industry, U.S. production will likely fall from 690 million gallons in 2008 to 300-350 million gallons in 2009. This could cost the U.S. economy more than 29,000 jobs. These are not jobs we can afford to lose. In addition to the looming expiration, the current structure of the tax credit has administrative problems and is subject to abuse that makes it difficult to ensure that that only qualified fuel benefits from the incentive. We owe it to taxpayers to make sure that we are getting the results we want from the tax incentives we enact so in addition to extending the tax credit we need to make the structural changes that Sen. Grassley and I are proposing today. The centerpiece of the bill is changing the incentive from a blender credit to a production tax credit so that we focus the benefits of the incentive on building the domestic production industry. Under current law, the credit was targeted at the blending of biodiesel with petroleum diesel. While this was helpful in getting us to the point we are now, it is time we move even farther in the direction of promoting the production of petroleum fuel alternatives. In addition, the legislation we are introducing today will simplify administration of the incentive for both taxpayers and the Internal Revenue Service, IRS, and will eliminate any remaining opportunity for abuse of the tax credit through schemes like ``splash and dash'' in which oil companies add a few drops of biodiesel to their petroleum diesel just to qualify for the tax credits. Under our bill, the $1 per gallon tax credit will be provided for the production of biodiesel, renewable diesel and aviation jet fuel that complies with established fuel standards and Clean Air Act requirements. For small producers, those with an annual production capacity of less than 60 million gallons, we increase the $1 to $1.10 for the first 15 million gallons of biodiesel produced. We simplify the definition of biodiesel so that we encourage production from any biomass-based feedstock or recycled oils and fats. Hopefully this will unleash even more research and commercialization of alternative fuel sources. The bill also simplifies the coordination between the income tax credit and the excise tax liability to, again, tighten up compliance and reduce administrative burdens on taxpayers. Most importantly, our bill would extend this tax credit for 5 years, giving needed financial predictability to the industry. I thank Senator Grassley for joining with me on this bill and look forward to working with our colleagues on the Finance Committee to adopt this worthwhile, commonsense proposal that is consistent with sound energy and sound tax policy. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, today I introduce the Longline Catcher Processor Subsector Single Cooperative Act. In Washington State, our history is based on a rich maritime tradition that contributes billions of dollars to the state's economy each year. There are 3,000 vessels in Washington's fishing fleet that employ 10,000 fishermen. Seafood processors employ another 3,800 Washingtonians. And fish wholesalers employ an additional 1,000 people. For many communities along this nation's coastlines, the economy literally ebbs and flows with the tide. It is important to remember that the ocean resources these communities depend on are a public trust and a resource to be both treasured and protected. As guardians of the ocean and its plentiful resources, it is necessary that we examine all issues of ``ownership'' with care, transparency, and fairness. The issue of fishery cooperatives has proved to be an issue that demands nothing less. In July of 2008, I chaired a hearing in the Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries and Coast Guard, examining the impact of fishery management regimes on fishing safety and conservation. Following that hearing and numerous meetings with stakeholders to discuss the policy, safety, economic, and environmental implications of fishing cooperatives, I am here today to introduce the Longline Catcher Processor Subsector Single Cooperative Act, legislation that would allow for the formation of a single fishing cooperative in the Pacific cod catcher processor fleet. Instead of fishermen racing against each other and the elements to catch as much as they can, this bill would allow the fishermen to bring some sanity back to their livelihoods. Under this legislation, the Pacific cod catcher processor fishery can allocate the catch among their members, putting an end to the very dangerous ``race for fish.'' The cooperative would empower commercial fishermen with the framework and incentives to police themselves while still preserving the crucial regulatory and oversight responsibilities of the federal government and the North Pacific Fishery Management Council. By adopting this bill, we can improve fishing safety in the Pacific cod catcher processor fishery by putting an end to the ``race for fish.'' Doing so would lessen the fishery's environmental footprint, and give these fishermen the financial certainty that has worked for others across this Nation. Fishing safety is a real concern that must be addressed at the federal level. In 2006, the Coast Guard reported that in the decade from 1994 to 2004, 1,398 fishing vessels were lost tragic--reminders of what can go wrong at sea. Most of these fishing-related fatalities occur in the North Pacific, where the fishermen from my home state of Washington make their living. The difficult waters equate to the highest casualty rates in the nation, and highest rates of fatality and injury among fisherman. But the North Pacific's rough waters are not the only factor these fishermen have to cope with. It is a tough business--tough for those who work the boats and those who make the business-end decisions. It's a business that is driven by incentives and dangerous conditions that work in tandem to place countless numbers of fishermen at risk. When things go wrong, it is usually because of failures at multiple levels. You see, it's not always about vessels. Nor is it all about inspections, safety equipment, or training. Fishing safety is closely related to how fisheries are managed and the very foundation fishing has come to be built upon: competition. Without legislation such as this, the fisheries will continue to operate on a foundation of destructive competition, or a ``race for fish.'' And this race for fish is a very dangerous race. According to Lieutenant Christopher Woodley, the former fishing Vessel Safety Coordinator of the 13th U.S. Coast Guard District based in Seattle: This race encourages fishermen to operate in all weather and sea conditions, to operate without rest, and encourages risk-taking behaviors. But we can change that. By instituting a cooperative style of fishery management through this legislation, we dramatically change the incentives. And by changing the incentives to put a new premium on safety, we can change the way people fish and hopefully prevent future tragedies at sea. Safety is not the only goal of this legislation. This legislation aims to make environmental and economic improvements to the process of fishing. By eliminating the ``race for fish,'' as I mentioned before, we effectively slow the pace of fishing meaning commercial fishermen can optimize onboard processing facilities. The result is an increase in the product recovery rate per pound of fish caught, meaning they can use more parts of the fish and make wiser and more efficient use of our precious ocean resources. A slower pace also decreases bycatch and promotes ownership of the fishery, which will facilitate a conservation mindset in the fishermen. We have once again shifted the incentive from reckless speed to doing things slower, better, smarter, and more environmentally conscious. Furthermore, the Longline Catcher Processor Subsector Fisheries Cooperative Act means greater job stability for the Pacific cod freezer longliner fleet's workers. When fishermen no longer race, the fishing season lasts longer. This means more stability and predictability for crew members, and eliminates the boom and bust cycle that often prevails today. I want to be clear that this bill is not yet a finished product. I welcome comments, suggestions, and criticisms to help make this bill good public policy for everyone involved. As we discuss issues like safety of our fisherman and environmental implications to our oceans, it's imperative that we commit to an open and transparent process that shines the light of accountability. Both in fisheries management, fishing safety, and those areas where the two intersect, transparency must be the rule. We owe it to our coastal communities, our fisherman, and the American public collectively as stewards of one of our greatest public resources--our oceans. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleagues Senators Vitter, Landrieu, Murray, and Martinez and introduce the American Shipping Reinvestment Act of 2009. This legislation will build on work Congress started in 2004 to strengthen the U.S. merchant marine, create needed jobs in U.S. ship building, and stimulate economic activity in our maritime sector. Since our Nation's founding, the maritime sector has been integral to U.S. national security and economic security. American companies own and operate both U.S. flag ships and a significant number of vessels under international registries. The U.S. flag fleets of these companies generally are built in the United States and are manned with U.S. seafarers. These U.S. flag fleets support not only the shipbuilding industrial base in this country and the pool of qualified seafarers, but they also create the shipping assets that are needed for military sealift in time of war or national emergency. Most people understand commercial shipping and understand that we maintain a fleet of ships for military purposes. What may not be as well known is that the international ships of some American-owned companies are part of what is called the effective U.S.-controlled fleet, EUSC fleet. The EUSC is the fleet of merchant vessels registered in certain foreign nations that are available for requisition, use, or charter by the U.S. Government in the event of war or national emergency. For example, U.S. flag commercial vessels and their American crews transported the majority of the cargo--more than 25 million measurement tons of cargo--in support of Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom during the period of 2002-2008. What people also may not know is that the EUSC fleet has been in decline for the past quarter century, largely because of U.S. tax policy. Following enactment of certain 1986 tax law changes, there was a precipitous decline in American-owned international shipping. To remain competitive, many American-owned shipping companies either became foreign companies or simply divested themselves of their foreign assets. A 2002 study commissioned by the Department of Defense and performed by professors at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology found that the EUSC fleet dropped by 38 percent in terms of numbers of ships and nearly 55 percent in terms of deadweight tonnage between 1986 and 2000. Perhaps more importantly, these declines have been largely experienced in militarily-useful vessel types. For example, the results of a 2002 DOD study found that if the EUSC fleet continues its present decline, DOD's ability to support U.S. military tanker requirements will diminish over time. Fortunately, Congress recognized this problem in 2004 and addressed it by enacting the tonnage tax regime as part of the American Jobs Creation Act. Our legislation today builds on that policy by correcting an oversight in the 2004 act that has continued to stymie the ability of U.S. shipbuilding companies to invest in new ships in the United States. We have very strong economic and national security reasons to support U.S. owned shipowning companies and to maintain a vibrant maritime industry in this country. We also have to continue to support needed changes in our tax code so that we provide operators of U.S. flag vessels in international trade the opportunity to be competitive with their tax-advantaged foreign competitors. Notwithstanding the significant competitive disadvantages between 1986 and 2004 for American companies operating international ships, there continues to be several U.S. owned shipping companies with foreign operations, and our legislation is directed as helping them sustain and grow their U.S. flag fleets and to maintain their EUSC fleets. This bill will help these companies make needed investment in the U.S. economy, and create jobs in a way that also will enhance national security. Specifically, The American Shipping Reinvestment Act of 2009 would repeal an outdated section of the Internal Revenue Code and allow U.S. shipping companies with foreign income earned prior to 1986 to reinvest it into the U.S. for the purpose of growing their U.S. flag operations. Congress first included foreign shipping income in Subpart F in 1975, which meant that all shipping income was taxable at the full U.S. corporate tax rate no matter whether it was invested abroad or in the United States. However, a temporary rule, applicable to foreign shipping income earned from 1975 to 1986, continued to allow for deferral in cases where this income was reinvested in qualifying shipping activities. Section 955 of the Internal Revenue Code provided that this income would be included in gross income, i.e., taxed, immediately under Subpart F in the event of any net decrease in qualified shipping investments. The American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 restored for shipping income the normal tax rule under which non-Subpart F income of foreign subsidiaries is not taxed by the United States until it is repatriated, generally as a dividend. In restoring the potential for deferral for certain shipping income, Congress in 2004 returned the treatment of shipping income to where it was prior to 1975. Unfortunately, Congress did not address the rules under IRC Section 955 that apply to income earned between 1975 and 1986, thus creating a situation that this income is permanently stranded offshore. Our bill would repeal IRC Section 955 and will allow these stranded assets to be reinvested in the United States under the favorable tax terms that were in effect for other companies and industries in 2004. Specifically, the legislation provides a one-time opportunity for American-owned shipping companies to bring foreign source income back into the United States at a discounted tax rate for the purpose of expanding and growing our domestic maritime industry. Without the commonsense change in our legislation, these old, stranded assets will never return to the United States and never be subject to U.S. taxation. The bill is guaranteed to create jobs for American workers with the funds being brought back into the U.S. economy--on the ships, in the shipyards building the ships, and in supporting businesses. The bill contains a provision that would recapture any tax benefits if a shipping company reduces its full-time U.S. employment levels. This bill also would enhance U.S. national security interests by supporting shipyards that are vital to our defense industrial base, by enabling new U.S. flag tanker capacity to transport our Nation's energy products, and by providing DOD with critical assets--manpower and ships--necessary to help sustain military sealift. The bill is strongly supported by maritime labor, shipyards, and ship owners and operators and can provide a boost to the U.S. maritime industry at a time when the U.S. is struggling to find its economic footing. The jobs created by this legislation are well-paying, long- term jobs in a crucial sector of our Nation's economy. I urge my colleagues to join me and my other original cosponsors in supporting this bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.